Skip to main content

Full text of "Replies to Elder Canright Attacks on Seventh-Day Adventists (1888)"

See other formats






Review ktstd Herald, 



Digitized by thetf^S^ffi R99Mtist Research 





Thb reader will observe in this document the occasional use 
of the word "Supplement." This is the explanation : The 
matter herein contained was first issued as a supplement to the 
Review and Herald, a 16-page weekly. For greater conven- 
ience, it now appears in the present form. 







In undertaking the unpleasant work of replying to the at- 
tacks of Eld. D. M. Canright upon Seventh-day Adventists 
and their doctrines, we feel almost like offering an apology to 
the reading public. For months past his attacks have con- 
tinued in various papers and upon many different points of 
our faith. He has held us up to ridicule, and tried to make it 
appear that our people are ignorant, narrow-miuded, bigoted, 
and doing much harm in the Christian world, and that our 
doctrines are utterly unworthy of confidence. He has also 
been preaching from place to place, making our work his con- 
stant theme of attack. We have, however, paid but slight at- 
tention to him, rarely referring to him in any way. We have 
preferred to attend to our own work, and leave him to say 
what he chose, believing that a discerning public would under- 
stand the animus of his attacks, and Dot condemn us unheard. 

But at our recent camp-meeting at Grand Rapids, Mich., his 
efforts became so personal, vindictive, and unreasonable that 
we have come to believe that forbearance will be no longer a 
virtue. We are persuaded that he thinks we have given him 
the field, and dare not reply to his oft-repeated assertions and 
fallacious arguments. We are free to admit that much that 
he has said is too worthless to need a reply. 

But there are many honest people who have wondered why 
we have not replied to these attacks, and such are in danger 


Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 4 — 

of drawing wrong conclusions concerning our silence, and 
may attribute it to fear or inability to meet his arguments. 
Such conclusions certainly would miss the mark greatly. Our 
long delay has been occasioned mainly by our wish to avoid 
personal controversies of this kind, and an earnest desire to 
attend to our own specific work of proclaiming the important 
truths which we firmly believe God has committed to our 
hands. We greatly dislike to come down from this high plane 
of duty to engage in matters of this character. They are 
highly distasteful to us, and we will not enter upon them till 
really forced to do so to defend the truth or save honest souls 
from being misled. 

We know full well that Eld. Canright has made many state- 
ments in his public attacks upon us, implying that our motives 
and conduct are very different from this ; that, in short, we 
pursue all persons of any prominence who leave our ranks, 
with a vindictive spirit, determined to ruin their reputation 
and blacken their characters ; and, like the sleuth hound, we 
never let up the pursuit till we have accomplished such a pur- 
pose. In a handbill scattered broadcast through the city of 
Grand Rapids, Mich., he says : "Like the Mormons, they [S. 
D. Adventists] try to ruin the character of all who leave 
them." " Every one is branded as a rebel and an infidel who 
dares doubt her [Mrs. White's] inspirations." He has made 
many statements of a similar character. 

The truthfulness of these declarations we positively deny. 
And to prove the correctness of our denial, we now propose, 
after having made these general statements, to present more 
specific evidence to substantiate them. 

In the month of January last, Eld. D. M. Canright, who had 
been connected with our people for about twenty-eight years, 
took the position that he could be an S. D. Adventistno longer. 
Feb. 17, he gave his reasons in public before the Otsego church, 
of which he was a member. The writer was present In his 
remarks concerning our people and the treatment he had re- 
ceived among us, he was very kind and conciliatory. He 
stated that he thought there was a larger percentage of true 
Christians among our people than among any other denomina- 
tion with which he was acquainted. He expressed a high ap- 
preciation of, and confidence in, some of our leading men, be- 
lieving them to be honest, devoted servants of Christ He 
said he was perfectly satisfied with the treatment he had re- 
ceived among Seventh-day Adventists, He had no fault to 

— 5 — 

find with them on that score, and felt that they had used him 
in all respects as well as Christians should. 

He expected to unite with the Methodists, Baptists, or some 
other evangelical denomination, and continue to labor in the 
ministry as long as he lived. He professed the most pacific 
intentions concerning us, saying that he should never pursue 
the course some others had who have left us, becoming bitter 
assailants of our people, but should give himself to revival 
and Christian work, which was the work of his choice. He 
was utterly sick of the debating and fighting spirit. He had 
formerly had some love for such things, but now his only de- 
sire was to labor for the salvation of souls. He expressed 
himself very strongly on this point and said that he never 
could become a Cainpbellite, a first-day Adventist, or a 
Seventh-day Baptist. He was opposed to their fighting spirit, 
and expressed strong dislike for them. 

At the close of the meeting, at his earnest request his name 
was dropped quietly from the church roll, that we might sepa- 
rate as peaceably as possible. He came to the writer in a 
very friendly way, and expressed the wish that he might pre- 
sent a brief statement of his change of views through the col- 
umns of the Review and Herald, our church paper. We 
answered that he could send in such a statement, and if it was 
consistent we would publish the same. He did so, and it was 
published verbatim in the issue of March 1. In it he expresses 
great sorrow that he felt compelled to part company with us, 
and gives a few of his reasons for so doing. He also says : 
"Personally I have not one word of fault to find either with 
the church where I live or with those with whom I have la- 
bored. I have been treated justly, liberally, and tenderly. 
There is not one hard feeling between us as far as 1 know. It 
will always give me pleasure to regard our people and speak of 
them as an honest and devout people." 

In view of his pacific intentions so strongly expressed,— 
though we had little idea he would in the end carry them out 
knowing full well the spirit which usually takes possession 
of those who leave the work of God,— we determined to do 
nothing that would give him the slightest cause for complaint 
on our part 

Accordingly, in publishing his statement in the Review 
and Herald, we took occasion to speak of him as kindly as 
possible consistent with a true representation of his course. 
In private letters after this, he expressed himself as well 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 6 — 


pleased at our treatment of him ; and we continued to cor- 
respond pleasantly as before. 

After the lapse of some weeks, we received letters from 
him complaining of the conduct of private persons among us 
who wrote to him in a bad spirit, imputing unworthy motives 
to him ; but he gave no names. He also spoke of an article 
in the Review and Herald which he supposed referred to 
him, though his name was not once mentioned in it. To still 
follow a pacific course, and make everything as pleasant as 
possible, and take away all just grounds of complaint con- 
cerning our treatment of him, the writer penned another ar- 
ticle, for the Review of March 22, headed, "A Few More 
Words Concerning Eld. Canright." It begins as follows :— 

" We had not intended to say anything further concerning 
the subject of Eld. Canright's withdrawal from our people, 
believing the better way to treat all such cases is to say as 
little as possible of that which will be likely to stir up personal 
feeling and bitterness. The separation of old friends and 
associates is painful enough at best. For our part, we much 
prefer to entertain no feelings worse than pity for those who 
have given up that which to us is the most glorious and pre- 
cious of all things upon earth— the present truth. 

"The only exceptions we would make in these instances is 
where they attack and misrepresent that truth which we feel 
called upon ever to defend as the truth of God. Then we 
should feel it duty to speak out plainly, and show the differ, 
ence between truth and error." 

This has ever been our position. Then follow words of cau- 
tion to our people, to avoid everything in this case calculated 
to stir up bitterness, imputing evil motives, etc, urging all to 
leave Eld. Canright to the righteous judgment of God, and 
not take the judgment-seat ourselves. Next follows a state- 
ment concerning his leaving us, presenting it in a light as fa- 
vorable to him as the truth would possibly warrant. The rea- 
son why this was written, was to prevent our people as much 
as possible from doing anything to provoke him and give him 
any reasonable ground of complaint, and make them view 
him as favorably as they reasonably could. This statement, 
written in the interests of peace, Eld. Canright has since pub- 
lished and republished extensively, to give himself as high a 
standard of character as possible before the world. This 
shows that he considered our testimony very valuable. He is 
welcome to it, as we are always glad to help those in need, if 
we can. 

In private letters Eld. Canright warmly thanked us for 
writing as we did. After a careful search through the col- 
umns of the Review, the only other instances we can find 
where his name is mentioned till long after he had begun his 
public attacks upon us in various papers, and in many places 
in the pulpit, are to be found in the issue of April 12. These 
occur in the "Progress Department," in the reports of W. W. 
Shepard, clerk of the church at Otsego, Mich., the local 
church which Eld. Canright left, and J. B. Buck, a member 
of the same church. As the Elder has intimated that he has 
been treated with great injustice through the columns of the 
Review, we will give verbatim what these brethren said. 
Bro. Shepard, in his report concerning the Otsego church, 
says : " Since the sad departure of Eld. Canright and family 
from the faith held so dear by our people, many inquiries 
have been made with reference to the condition of the church 
in this place. To the readers of the Review we would say 
in reply, that the interest never was better than at the present 
time." He does not make another reference to him, but speaks 
only of the condition of the church. 

Bro. Buck's report refers to the fact that he had been labor- 
ing with Eld. C. at Pine Grove and Almena just before he left 
our people. 11 This," he says, M was Eld. Canright's last work 
among us; and when the report of his apostasy was received, 
they were much shocked, but their confidence was not shaken 
in the present truth; for they remembered that in Christ's 
time there was one who saw the miracles he did, and heard 
his preaching, and yet apostatized from the present truth of 
that time. And as the Scriptures plainly state that 1 in the 
latter times some shall depart from the faith,' we see in this 
only another sign that we are in the last days." Then, near 
the close of his report he speaks again of the Otsego church : 
"Last Sabbath I was with the church at Otsego. The report 
has gone out that this church is nearly torn to pieces "by Eld. 
Canright's change of faith. But we are happy to say this is 
not the case." Then he speaks a few words concerning the 
prosperity of the church, and this is all. We have been par- 
ticular to copy every word said which could be thought to 
reflect upon the Elder in these reports, and we are sure the 
candid reader will be surprised that there is so little that 
could be complained of when we consider that these words 
came from the very church which Eld. C. left to join those 
opposed to us in faith— the very place where there would be 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

likely to be deep feeling on that point, if anywhere. There 
is one word, "apostasy," used which may seem to some ob- 
jectionable. Eld. Canright tries to make it appear that our 
using this word concerning him is very uncharitable. Webster 
defines apostate as follows : 11 One who has forsaken the faith, 
principles, or party to which he before adhered." We know 
of no other word which would so exactly describe Eld. Can- 
right's course. What, then, is there uncharitable in its use? 
It expresses in his case the exact truth. 

These mentions of his name are the only ones we are able 
to find, after a careful search of the columns of the Review, 
till long after he began a public war upon us, in pulpit and 
press. We have nearly a dozen other public journals engaged 
in disseminating our religious views, and to the very best of 
our knowledge not oue of them has even mentioned his name 
since he left us. These reports to which I have referred were 
written by persons holding no positions of responsibility in 
the denomination, and what they say is mild indeed; while 
what he quotes from the writer with such satisfaction as an 
indorsement of his character, was written by one holding the 
highest offices in the denomination, and was published in the 
editorial columns. Yet he claims to have been terribly abused. 
This claim is utterly without foundation. Never did a man 
leave former associates and go over to opposers of their faith, 
and receive, on the whole, kinder treatment than has Eld. 
Canright. He has, however, been constantly seeking some 
cause for provocation. 

If an article was written in the Review, on general princi- 
ples, never mentioning his name, condemning certain princi- 
ples of conduct, he has been fain to take it to himself ; 
believed it was written for his special benefit, and felt greatly 
abused by it If an article appeared warning our people of 
the danger of losing their hold on Bible truth, he must have 
been the target We have found it impossible to please him. 
This is the way he puts it in the handbill above mentioned, 
and in other public prints: "No less than eight articles ap- 
peared in their leading paper, the Review, attacking me 
openly or covertly, calling me an apostate, traitor, unstable, 
unreliable; comparing me to Balaam, Judas, Demas, and 
other bad men ; insinuating that I left them for money or 
popularity; that I must have been guilty of some secret sin, 
as adultery or the like." For these causes he was obliged 
(so he would have the public believe) to commence a war 
upon us through the pulpit and the press. 

Many of these charges he cannot possibly substantiate. 
Most of these references are taken from articles of a general 
nature. For example, in one instance where Eld. Haskell 
wrote an article entitled M Warning to the Church," he refers 
in it to Demas and Balaam, showing the course they pur- 
sued. Eld. Canright at once draws the conclusion that the 
whole is aimed at him, and that he is compared to Demas and 
Balaam. In speaking of them, Eld. H. stated that some se- 
cret sin was the primal cause of their dawnfall. Hence Eld. 
C. at once draws the conclusion that he has been charged 
with such conduct, though his name was not once mentioned. 
In the article referred to, the sin of sensual gratification was 
spoken of. Eld. C. at once fancies he is charged with adul- 
tery. He wrote a wrathful letter to Eld. Haskell for charg- 
ing him with such a crime ! Eld. H. positively denied having 
him in view when he wrote on that point. But Eld. Canright 
will have it, notwithstanding the denial, that such crimes 
were charged upon him; and so he is "abused," and we are 
bound to "ruin his character." It is hard to please a man in 
such a state of mind. If we utterly ignore his name or ex- 
istence, and even when through the columns of our leading pa- 
per we caution and urge our brethren for the sake of peace to 
say nothing to provoke debate, yet we are charged with the 
worst kind of treatment. He feels bound to commence a 
work of retaliation. He must and will have redress. 

So he commences at once an "exposure of Adventism," 
going from place to place to expose our " fanaticism," at the 
price of too dollars per night, refusing, so we are informed, 
in one instance at least, to proceed with his discourse till the 
money was collected. W e know not how many " exposures " 
he has favored the public with at this exceedingly mod- 
erate price, but we have learned of many. Perhaps the Elder 
is compelled to do this to eke out his very moderate salary 
received from his Baptist friends, in order to "keep the wolf 
from the door." 

He next commences his attacks through the public press. 
The religious papers of the Methodists, Disciples, and first- 
day Adventists, and of various other churches, are opened 
to him. They very much hanker, it appears, for something 
from this enraged and much abused (?) champion, to prop- 
erly show up the poor deluded Adventists. The Methodist 
Michigan Christian Advocate opens its columns for a long 
series of articles, " copyrighted, and all rights reserved." The 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 10 — 

— 11 — 

Disciple Oracle, of Des Moines, Iowa, also favors the public 
with a large grist of the same. The World's Crisis, of Bos- 
ton, and the Bible Banner, first-day Adventist papers, stand 
meekly waiting to serve up a slice of the poor flayed S. D. 
Adventists. Eld. Canright has now gotten over his dislike 
for the two latter denominations, expressed so forcibly at Ot- 
sego last winter, so that he is willing to make them channels 
of communication to a waiting public. Indeed, he is glad to 
publish their praises of him and his doings to an admiring 
world. (See Michigan Christian Advocate of July 16.) 

Other papers of other denominations all along the line are 
greedy to show a dislike to the Adventists by occasion- 
ally serving up a nice titbit, if it only hits them hard 
enough. Articles are copied from these papers and sent 
to Europe, and are translated into various languages, and 
published there. And reverend doctors of divinity with great 
glee congratulate themselves that now they have found some- 
thing with which to check the onward progress of this de- 
luded sect The same is done for the islands of the Pacific. 
We have full knowledge of these things' being copied and ex- 
tensively circulated in Australia, New Zealand, and other 
countries on the other side of the world. They have evidently 
met a long-felt want in all parts of the earth where our doc- 
trine is being propagated. These opposing sects can now 
make friends to oppose the work of God, just as Pilate and 
Herod could become friends to persecute the Son of God. A 
u k fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind." 

Not only has he opposed us in these general ways, but he 
has attacked us in a more special manner. In the latter part 
of September we had a large camp-meeting appointed in the 
city of Grand Rapids, Mich. We had a city mission there, 
and a tent meeting had been held last summer with a good in- 
terest. A little previous to the time of our cainp-nieeting, 
Eld. Canright came to the city and visited most of the news- 
paper offices, to obtain the privilege of inserting articles in 
the city papers against us. These articles began to appear as 
our meeting was about to convene, and were designed to prej- 
udice the minds of the citizens against us, to destroy as far 
as possible their interest to attend. Handbills containing 
these articles were circulated broadcast over the city, and ex- 
tensively among the crowds of people attending the 41 West 
Michigan Fair." After seeing the determined spirit to wage 
war upon us in this personal manner, we deviated from our 

course hitherto pursued, and published a moderate statement 
concerning him and his course, in one of the city papers. This 
he followed up with a bitter personal attack upon Mrs. White 
and myself, which was circulated through the city in the form 
of a handbill, and thousands of copies were scattered on our 
camp-ground on his Sunday Lord's day, a day which his 
church regards as sacred to religion. But we are happy to 
say these vindictive efforts did us but little harm, as many 
thousands of people came upon the ground and gave excellent 
attention for hours to Mrs. White and other speakers. 

These things have decided us to give Eld. Canright and his 
work some little attention in the form of this Supplement 
Thus have our efforts for peace been met For months past 
we have calmly pursued our way, paying little attention to 
these attacks, though we have well known that they were 
being circulated to the ends of the earth by those who hate us 
and our work. We have been troubled with no fears for the 
success of our work. If it is of God, a storm occasionally will 
not damage it It will only come out a little brighter for the 
friction it receives. God's truth is hard to kill, so we have not 
been greatly anxious about the result, and we are not yet 
But there are a few honest souls here and there whom we de- 
sire to save from being misled, and we write for their benefit 
We firmly believe that the candid, discerning public— the only 
ones we are seeking to reach— will see through all such at- 
tacks as these of Eld. Canright The animus of these efforts 
is too plain to deceive any but those who desire to believe 

Eld. Canright has made the statement, and would have us 
believe, that for a time after he left us he was pacifically in- 
clined, doing nothing to disturb any of our people or lead them 
from their faith, till provoked by our "abuse" of him ; that 
he wrote only to those who first wrote to him. This we could 
better believe if we did not personally know of instances to 
the contrary, where he wrote long letters to persons who not 
only did not write to him first, but who had no desire for his 
letters, using all the arguments and persuasion possible to 
unsettle their faith. We can give him names of parties to 
whom he thus wrote, if he desires them. We know of one 
poor soul, now a Baptist minister, whom he at last persuaded 
sufficiently to face the terrible ordeal of abuse (?) from 
S. D. Adventists, and step out of our communion. To the best 
of our knowledge the poor man's name has never since been so 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 12 — 

— 13 — 

much as once mentioned in any paper published by S. D. Ad- 
ventists, or any public notice taken of it by any organ of the 
denomination. We learn from one who personally knows, 
that about fifty letters passed between the parties before Eld. 
Canright could get his brother's courage up to the sticking 

From these facts the public can see clearly that we are act- 
ing wholly on the defensive in publishing this Supplement in 
reply to Eld. C.'s attacks. We consider that he has utterly 
broken his word in taking the course he has in attacking us, 
and that all his professions of pacific intentions when he left 
us were mere idle words, which he did not mean, or at least 
did not keep. In his vindictive efforts to injure us, he has far 
exceeded any and every person who has left our communion, 
though he professed to despise the course and spirit of many 
who have never gone one half so far as he has. He tried to 
have us fondly believe when he left us, that he wished to labor 
wholly in church and revival work, for the salvation of souls. 
He did not love controversy, oh ! no ; he wanted to have love 
and harmony with all his old friends. But his principal stock 
In trade now is to show up the poor Adventists. To this end 
he writes, to this end he labors. His articles are "copy- 
righted, and all rights reserved." He is going to get out a 
big book, and give Adventism a terrible blow. He seems to 
make this his principal means of livelihood. How little the 
poor man could realize the spirit of an apostate till he com- 
menced to play the r61e ! We have the charity to believe that 
he himself never realized the nature of the spirit which would 
possess him. From our very soul we pity the poor man who 
is taken possession of by such a spirit And what a beautiful 
spectacle is presented by the D. D.'s, the reverend gentlemen, 
the editors of religious papers, who await with such delight 
the utterances of a man who is led by such a spirit! So anx- 
ious are they to find something with which to put down Ad- 
ventism, that they thus lower their sacred calling. What 
would they think of a man who would thus go out from the 
Methodists, Baptists, or any other "evangelical" denomina- 
tion, and make the kind of a raid on them that Eld. Canright 
does upon us? He would be held up to public execration. 
Is such a course any better when against Adventists? We 
trow not. Geo. L Butleb. 


One sentiment is very conspicuous in the utterances of 
Eld. Canright and his new friends; viz., that S. D. Adventists 
suffered an irreparable loss when he left their ranks. We 
should suppose from what is said, that the denomination 
would hardly be able to recover from it And it has been 
intimated already, and doubtless with many the wish is fa- 
ther to the thought, that the crumbling process of disintegra- 
tion has already commenced, now that we have lost our 
M leader" (?). To make this still more evident, we will quote 
a few utterances. Says the World's Crisis, first-day Advent- 
1st paper, of Boston, Mass. :— 

" This letter will be a pleasant surprise to those Crisis 
readers who have long known Eld. Canright to be an able, 
zealous, and remarkably successful advocate of seventh-day 

Saysthe Christian Oracle, Disciple paper, of Des Moines, 
Iowa :— 

" It is idle for Adventists to say that he is not the peer of 
any man they have ever had in their ranks." 

A lengthy extract from the Kalamazoo Daily Telegraph, of 
May 20, has been extensively copied in other papers, and cir- 
culated in various directions. If the copy was not furnished 
by Eld. Canright himself, the main statements in it must 
have been ; for the Telegraph could bave obtained them di- 
rectly or indirectly only from the Elder. We quote portions 
of this as follows:— 

"He was acknowledged among all as one among their 
ablest leading men." "About 1,000 persons have embraced 
the seventh-day faith under his labors, and ten ministers are 
now preaching that faith who were his converts. Besides 
writing extensively for their papers, he is the author of 
twenty-two books, pamphlets, and tracts on that faith, which 
have been sold by tens of thousands, and scattered to the 
ends of the earth. The Elder has held many responsible 
positions among them. Last summer he was sent to ten dif- 
ferent States to attend their great conventions." "He was 
decidedly the ablest debater in the denomination, having 
held fourteen set debates with able ministers, from Maine 
to California," 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 14 — 

— 15 — 

He continues at length in this strain, showing his eminence 
in this body. The discerning reader will not fail to see that 
the Elder was the substantial author of these modest state- 
ments, as the matters mentioned are of such a character that 
none but himself would be likely to know them. For exam- 
ple, who would know the exact number of debates he had 
held but he himself ? or who the exact number of pamphlets 
and eight-page tracts he had written but D. M. C. ? Who 
would be able to state with such minuteness the number of 
converts he had made? The whole statement bears the evi- 
dent ear-marks of the Elder himself. His accustomed mod- 
esty is here conspicuous— u decidedly the ablest debater iu 
the denomination." Whether he ever furnished the copy for 
these statements or not, he fully indorses them ; for he in- 
corporates them into his article in the Michigan Christian 
Advocate of July 16, 1887. After quoting these and many 
more of a similar kind, and the recommendation of good 
character which we gave him, he adds : " I give the above that 
the reader may know whether or not I am qualified to speak 
understandingly on this subject" Thus these flattering views 
of himself he publishes to the world, and thus fully indorses 
them, and really makes them his own. The egotism of these 
and other statements will receive attention in another article. 
In these extracts Eld. Canright is made to appear a wonder- 
ful man. And it is therefore concluded that his loss to our 
people is great beyond expression. It is supposed, doubtless, 
by many that we shall mourn over this, and that our denomi- 
nation will soon crumble to pieces Ibecause our "leader" is 

To S. D. Adventists these ideas are simply amusing. We 
wonder how people can so easily be gulled and so readily 
fool themselves. We ask our orthodox friends how it hap- 
pens that this great man, this leading minister, this "peer of 
any man they [S. D. Adventists] ever had in their cause," as 
the Delphic " Oracle " of Des Moines says, this M ablest debater 
in the denomination," who has converted 1,000 persons to the 
Sabbath, now that he has stepped down and out, and been 
with our enemies for many months, and poured out in the 
public prints so many articles against his former faith, has 
had no greater success. As far as we can ascertain, not a 
dozen out of nearly thirty thousand of our people have fol- 
lowed htm. Is this not strange? How is it that in his own 
church at Otsego, Mich., where he has lived for years, not a 

single person outside of his own family, so far as we know, 
left our people when he apostatized? How does it happen 
that in the Michigan Conference, where he has lived and 
labored most of all, we know of scarcely a single apostasy 
caused by his departure ? This very year our official reports 
showed an addition of nearly four hundred new converts 
and $8,000 in tithes, an increase of Conference funds of 
over thirty per cent. Do these things indicate that Advent- 
ism is going to pieces where Eld. Canright's apostasy is best 
known ? The fact is well understood among us, that there 
are but few ministers of any prominence among us who had 
less influence in the denomination than Eld. D. M. Canright 
He has been known for years to be a shaky man. He has 
well known for a long time past that he was not trusted 
as a safe man. He intimated this plainly to several promi- 
nent brethren as he was about leaving us. He was u satisfied 
he could never gain the confidence of our people." There 
are many among us who believe he would have been with us 
still but for this fact. 

But the inquirer will ask, Are not these statements above 
referred to true? and did he not occupy these positions of 
trust and responsibility, write these books, and hold these 
leading debates ? We answer, These claims are partly true 
and partly untrue. We will now state the facts as we per- 
sonally know them. 

Some twenty-eight years ago, D. M. Canright embraced the 
views of S. D. Adventists. For several years he labored to 
acquire some necessary education, and soon after commenced 
to preach their doctrines. He was blessed with a good degree 
of earnestness, with fair ability, and with ambition to suc- 
ceed, and he had excellent success in his labors, and was 
considered for many years a growing man in the denomina- 
tion. He had a strong taste for debates and controversy, and 
applied himself especially to them, and had good success in 
them. These qualities always attract attention, and they 
gave him quite a prominence. For a dozen years his labors 
were valuable to this cause, and he traveled extensively in 
different States and Conferences. He then had quite fully 
the confidence of our people. But from that point their confi- 
dence began to lessen, and it has continued to decrease ever 
since. We will briefly relate the causes. Eld. Canright's 
good opinion of his own abilities had, during the meantime, 
become quite pronounced. He was never noted for patience, 

Digitized hy the Center for Adventist Research 

— 16 — 

— 17 

forbearance, or special regard for the opinions of others. He 
was a person who formed his conclusions remarkably quick, 
and was inclined to be rash ; and though in the main a genial, 
pleasant, frank companion, yet his desire to have his own 
way sometimes got him into trouble. He never could bear re- 
proof with patience, or feel composed when his way was 
crossed. When he came to mingle in important matters with 
brethren in prominent positions, these and other traits nat- 
urally got him into trouble. S. D. Adventists believe in 
order, and that positions of responsibility should be respected. 
Eld. C. had little respect for any one's opinion unless it coin- 
cided with his own. The reader can readily see that very 
naturally there would be friction. He always hated reproof, 
hence bore it like a fractious child. So he had some unpleas- 
ant experiences, as we well remember. 

On such occasions the Elder was immediately greatly 
troubled with doubts. When everything went pleasantly, 
he could usually see things with clearness. When he was 
"abused," as he always thought he was when things did not 
go to suit him, the evidences of our faith began immediately 
to grow dim. Dark clouds of unbelief floated over his men- 
tal sky, and he felt that everything was going by the board. 
Here was the Elder's special weakness. He is a strong man 
in certain directions when all goes smoothly, but very weak 
in adversity. He failed to " endure hardness as a good sol- 
dier of Jesus Christ." He was good in a fight, and appeared 
at best advantage when in a hot debate. This was his forte. 
But when things apparently were against him, he seemed to 
have no staying, recuperative qualities. 

These weaknesses began to manifest themselves as far back 
as 1870. In the last of December of that year he held a debate 
with Eld. Johnson, Presbyterian, in Monroe, Iowa. The 
writer was present Eld. C. was not feeling in good spirits 
through the debate, though he presented his arguments quite 
clearly and met with success. The night following the debate 
I occupied a room with him. I was greatly astonished to find 
him under powerful temptations to give up religion and the 
Bible, and become an absolute infidel. I labored with him ail 
night long ; neither of us slept a wink. In the morning he 
seemed more calm, and a few weeks later he came to the Gen- 
eral Conference at Battle Creek, Mich., made some confes- 
sions of his feelings, and went away in a much happier state 
of mind. He went on quite zealously for two or three years. 

In the summer of 18T3, he went to Colorado with Eld. and 
Mrs. White, for his health. Some unpleasant circumstances 
arose. He received some reproof, felt very much aggrieved, 
and for several months ceased to preach. He went to Califor- 
nia, and for a season he worked with his hands on a farm. 
He came very near giving up everytlnng. But his brethren 
tried to help his mind and cheer him up all they could, till 
finally he commenced to preach again. He labored on for sev- 
eral years, held several important positions of trust in the 
work, and we all hoped he would show his weakness no more. 

But in October of 1880, he had another backset. He became 
discouraged— we never knew from what special cause— and 
ceased to preach. He had been studying elocution, and when 
he gave up preaching he began to lecture on elocution, and 
traveled considerably in Wisconsin and Michigan, holding 
classes. He told me himself that for a time he then ceased to 
observe the Sabbath, though he still believed it to be obliga- 
tory as the Bible Sabbath. He thought then quite seriously 
of preaching for the Methodists, and it is currently reported 
on what seems to be good authority, that he visited a Method- 
ist presiding elder to make such arrangements ; but this we 
do not personally know. But the Elder's conscience troubled 
him greatly at times. He wrote me, desiring to see me and 
have a long talk. We met in Battle Creek the following Jan- 
uary, and had some fifteen hours 1 conversation. The poor 
man was in great distress of mind, and our sympathies were 
deeply enlisted for him. Suffice it to say that he took his 
stand once more and commenced to preach again. 

The fourth instance of his lapsing into doubt and darkness 
occurred in the fall of 1882, when he gave up preaching and 
went to farming at Otsego, Mich. He returned to us again 
the last of September, 1884. During this time he had little or 
no faith in the peculiar doctrines of S. D. Adventists ; and in 
a letter before me, written to a friend in December, 1888, he 
says: "If I was situated differently, would just as soon join 
some other church." And speaking of the work of our peo- 
ple, he says: "Hence, as you can see, my faith in the whole 
thing has been shaken." So notorious was his apostasy at 
the time, that without doubt the church stood where a little 
encouragement would have led them to withdraw the hand of 
fellowship from him. But some of us who felt a pity for him, 
knowing his weakness, counseled delay, and commenced to 
labor earnestly to help him. After special efforts had been 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 18 - 

— 19 — 

made by the writer and other friends, he came to our camp- 
meeting in September, 1884, at Jackson, Mich. After some 
further talk with him, and explaining some things which he 
viewed in an exaggerated light, he came out and publicly took 
his stand with us once more, making a very affecting confes- 
sion before a thousand people, which moved the whole con- 
gregation to tears. He confessed his great darkness of mind 
which he had felt for a long time, and said that now all was 
clear to him. Soon after this, in the issue of the Review of 
Oct 7, 1884, he made quite a full confession, which is given 
on another age. This was wholly voluntary on his part. 

Eld. Canright for some time after this seemed indeed like a 
changed man. He seemed more as he used to a dozen years 
ago, and we had great hopes of him that he had now become 
a staunch, reliable man. He labored with us till last January, 
when he became somew hat cast down again, and has finally 
given up his experience for a quarter of a century, and has 
gone out from our ranks, and commenced a bitter raid upon us. 

In view of these undisputed, unquestionable facts, will the 
candid reader wonder why S. D. Adventists do not consider 
Eld. Canright a strong, reliable man? why he has so small 
a f ollowing from our ranks ? and why his influence is so small 
among our people? We have no desire to impute mean and 
mercenary motives to Eld. C. We leave his motives with God, 
who knows all. From our hearts we have pitied the poor 
man, and would have been glad to let him depart in peace, as 
we stated publicly in the Review last spring. And had he 
lived up to his own solemn promises, we should have made him 
no trouble whatever. We personally had a warm, tender, 
friendly feeling for him. But when he attacks the work to 
which we have consecrated our life, and tries by every means 
possible to make that which we firmly believe to be the work 
of God odious in the eyes of our fellow-men, we are bound to 
speak out and state the facts. Can the candid reader blame 

But it will be asked, Was it not true that Eld. Canright held 
the highest positions among your people, and was he not con- 
sidered one of your greatest writers ? Did he not write your 
most important books ? We reply, Eld. C. was for two years 
the third man on the General Conference Committee of three in 
1876 and 1877. But it will be noticed that this was some ten 
years ago, before this vacillating course was so marked. 
He has held no very prominent positions of late years. At 

the last General Conference, though apparently in perfect 
union with us, he was elected to no important office whatever. 
He doubtless would have been had he not proved himself un- 
reliable in so many instances. His ability would have justi- 
fied it had he been considered a safe, Judicious man. Our breth- 
ren felt friendly toward him, and kindly disposed. We would 
really have been glad to advance him. But the nominating 
committees could not be persuaded to present his name for 
high office, though some of us really desired to see him chosen. 
This was evidently why he said to several of us, as we stated 
before, that he was satisfied our people would never have con- 
fidence in him again. How far such thoughts influenced him 
in taking his departure from us, it is not for us to say. 

But was he not a voluminous writer ?— He certainly was. 
He poured a constant stream through the paper, and wrote 
numerous eight-page tracts, a few pamphlets, and only two 
small books. He wrote some very good things, much that 
might have been improved, and considerable which never 
saw the light of day. Most of his writings which were pub- 
lished passed through other hands, who primed and greatly 
benefited them. He was very far from being considered one 
of our ablest writers. Our standard works were never written 
by him. Had he written far less in quantity and bestowed 
much more thought upon the quality, his writings would have 
been far more valuable. Yet in his better days he did much 
good work, which has been appreciated. 

These are facts which can be substantiated by the testimony 
of all our leading men who have known him best The whole 
fraternity of those who hate our people and our doctrines 
evidently feel greatly elated at the acquisition of this new 
champion, who withdraws from those he has professed to love 
so warmly for a score of years, and now joins hands with, and 
leads the opposition of, those who hate us most profoundly. 
He expresses great sorrow because he was forced to part with 
his old friends. He would have us believe he loved us all 
deeply. Perhaps he thought he did. However that may be, 
a man of fine feelings and with a true sense of honor would 
never treat his old friends as he has. Say what he may, this 
cause made him what he was. It took him when but a poor, 
beardless boy, with few friends, and needy of much counsel 
and training every way, and made a man of him; gave him 
influence and position, many friends, and generous remunera- 
tion, till he came to think he was a great man in the world. 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 20 — 

He is obliged to say, U I have been treated justly, liberally, 
and tenderly." 11 Personally, I have not one word of fault to 
find either with the church where I live or with those with 
whom I have labored." (Review of March 1, 1S87.) Yet 
now, like the ungrateful youth who strikes his own mother, he 
can turn upon his old friends and the cause which fostered him, 
ridicule us through the papers and in the pulpit, make the ut- 
most of our unpopularity, join with our bitterest enemies in 
opposition to our work, and class us among Mohammedans, 
Mormons, and other fanatics, and do his best to make it ap- 
pear that we are a narrow, bigoted set of dupes, led blindly 
by a fanatical woman, we know not where. As poor a set as 
we are, we trust there are many men among us who have 
enough sense of gratitude and remembrance of past kindness 
and good fellowship, who, should they ever leave this work, 
would refuse to follow Eld. Canright' s example. They would 
retire in quiet, and not make war on their old friends. We 
could never have believed our old friend D. M. Cauright would 
pursue such a course had we not well knowu his weak- 
ness and the nature of that spirit which often takes possession 
of those who give up this truth. We have seen some exam- 
ples of this in the past, in a less degree, and, thank God ! 
some honorable exceptions. We have never known a man in 
all our lives who could change his mind so suddenly and so 
radically as Eld. C. 

And now we congratulate the eminent editors and doctors 
of divinity who have such a poor ©pinion of the Adv.entists, on 
the great acquisition they have made. What a thrill of joy 
has passed through their hearts at tlue advent of this new 
champion 1 They fondly hope this poor sect will now disin- 
tegrate, and trouble their Israel no more. All around the 
earth the good news was heralded, u Eld. Canright has left 
the Adventists." We have reports of it in Europe, in New 
Zealand, in Australia, and all over America. His articles are 
copied thus widely. How wonderful and satisfactory 1 But 
sboLld it turn out in a few months, as we are sure it will, that 
Adventism is moving right along with accelerated velocity and 
momentum, while his apostasy has hardly caused a ripple in 
the stream; that its ranks are only closed a little closer and 
firmer; and that it is becoming more and more aggressive, 
will these eminent men feel as happy as before ?— We presume 
not For our part, we think they have made fools of them- 
selves, ind already some sensible men among them begin to 

— 21 — 

see it. We assure them Eld. C. ? s departure is no great loss to 
us. For ten years past his labors have really been no benefit 
to us. In the early days of his humility he was a valuable 
man. But his changing about, his sudden flops at any little 
discouragement, his general unreliability in an important 
emergency, has caused more care, unsettled more minds, and 
required watchfulness greater than the benefit of his labors has 
j ustiiied. We have clung to him for years for the sake of the 
poor man's soul, and have, as he says, shed tears over him, and 
pleaded with him not to destroy himself, and done everything 
we knew to save him. We doubt not that in his egotism he 
thought this was because of our fears for our cause should he 
leave us. Never was a greater mistake; we have no fears on 
that score whatever. Even now, after all he has done, our 
heart goes out in pity for him. We bear him no hatred. We 
have long delayed to write these things, and would not now 
but that he has forced us to do it, to save honest souls whom 
he is doing his best to mislead. Meanwhile we trust the rev- 
erend gentlemen who have him in keeping will enjoy his as- 
sistance the best they can. ' In the end they will find how val- 
uable he is. g. i. b. 


In coming before the public as the champion opposer of 
Seventh-day Adventism, Eld. Canright has seen fit to preface 
his statements with quite a glowing account of his former serv- 
ices among us, and an imposing array of the positions and 
offices he has held, in proof that he now possesses the very 
qualifications necessary to overturn the whole system. 

His new attitude strikes some as quite anomalous. He 
preached in favor of the system, with some occasional vaca- 
tions, very confidently for some twenty-two years ; he led many 
to embrace it ; he often debated it with able opposers, and every 
time achieved a marked victory; but he suddenly finds that 
he was all the while entirely wrong, not on one point only, but 
on every essential feature of the system he had been promul- 
gating. Accordingly he now steps forth and challenges the 
attention of the public by virtually saying, I have been teach- 
ing error for the past twenty-two years; I have deceived hun- 
dreds into the adoption of a position for which there is no 
foundation in the word of God ; I have sustained the most 
transparent error against the strongest opposition ; I have as- 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 22 — 

— 23 — 

serted positively that this scripture proved such a point, and 
that history sustained such a view, when it was all contrary 
to reason and Scripture and history, and there was nothing to 
it; and I am, consequently, now prepared to teach ail people 
the right way; just come to me, and now 1 can show you the 
truth Simon pure. 

There are some who naturally look with distrust upon such 
qualifications in a public teacher. They wonder how it is that 
the twentieth time he read the Bible through, and in all the 
previous nineteen times, it seemed to teach very clearly the 
views he held ; but the next time he read it through, suddenly 
the whole thing collapsed, and now the Bible on all the dis- 
tinctive points of his faith teaches just the opposite. How 
could so sweeping and radical a change be accomplished in so 
short a space of time ? and the query will arise whether such a 
change must not be the result of feeling and policy, rather 
than of reason and real conviction. Such radical and whole- 
sale transformations do not usually occur so suddenly from ra- 
tional causes. 

Again, he says that he had supposed till just lately that the 
seventh-day Sabbath was a brand new doctrine, reserved for 
the close of the gospel dispensation: that so we hold, and so 
he had been taught to believe; but as he comes to read church 
history he finds that view entirely exploded, and no truth in 
it How is this? Are we to understand that he preached for 
twenty-two years without reading church history? or shall 
we suppose that when he read it he did n't believe it? or is it 
this way, that he understood years ago that his views were not 
sustained by any evidence worthy of belief, and yet continued 
to preach them when he did not believe them? There is 
a dark penumbra hovering about the situation, which must be 
quite embarrassing to one occupying such a position. S. D. 
Adventists hold no such position on the Sabbath as that men- 
tioned above; and if he held it, and if this is a specimen of 
his understanding of our position on other points, it is no 
wonder that his theoretical structure has, like the house 
founded upon the sand, gone down in ruins. The only won- 
der is that it stood so long. 

The laudations of himself which Eld. C. produces are quo- 
tations from various papers published in different parts of the 
land. To these papers he of course furnished the alleged 
facts ; for they had no other source from which to learn them. 
But aside from this, when he causes them to be quoted in 

other papers, he accepts and indorses them as declarations of 
his own; and when he commenced his series of articles 
in the Michigan Christian Advocate, he did preface them 
with just such quotations from the Kalamazoo Daily Tele- 
graph, the World's Crisis, the Christian Oracle, the Chris- 
tian Herald, and the Otsego Union. 

To say nothing of the kind of taste involved in setting one's 
self forth as "one among their ablest leading men," "decid- 
edly the ablest debater in the denomination," " an able, zeal- 
ous, and remarkably successful advocate," " the peer of any 
man they have ever had in their ranks," etc., etc, there are 
some statements contained in the extracts which, to be appre- 
ciated, should be viewed in the light of facts. For instance, 
the quotation from the Christian Herald, Baptist paper, De- 
troit, Mich., says:— 

"Kev. D. M. Canright was for many years one of the lead- 
ing ministers among the Seventh-day Adventists, and until 
his change of denominational relationship he was professor 
of Biblical exegesis in their College at Battle Creek." 

What idea would any one gather from this statement ? It 
would be nothing less than this: that during the "many 
years" while he was a leading minister among this people, he 
was, if not the sole, at least the responsible, occupant of the 
chair of Biblical exegesis in the College at Battle Creek. No 
one could understand it otherwise. Of course the Herald 
doubtless published it honestly, as it would give the informa- 
tion furnished it; but he who took it from the Herald and 
furnished it for the Advocate, must have done so with a 
full knowledge of the impressions it would convey and the 
conclusions which people would gather from it. Whether 
it was published with any such design or not, we leave 
the reader to judge. But what are the facts in the case? 
They are simply these: Three weeks before the close of 
the long whiter term in the spring of 1886, the one who oc- 
cupied the position of instructor in Biblical exegesis, found it 
impossible to finish the work of that tenn in addition to his 
other duties, on account of failing health. It was therefore de- 
cided to call in some one to serve the three remaining weeks 
and complete the course of that year; and Eld. Canright was 
employed for that purpose. The class in this department 
having now become so large that more than one instructor 
was needed to carry it forward properly, it was decided by 
the College Board, in the summer of 1886, to employ an assist- 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 2-4 — 

— 25 — 

ant, and Eld. Canright's name was inserted in the catalogue 
for that position. At the opening of the next lecture course, 
Nov. 18, 1886, the former occupant being then busy at the ses- 
sion of the General Conference, as secretary, Eld. Canright 
organized the class, and continued his work there till Dec. 34,— 
five weeks. That closed his connection with the College- 
three weeks as temporary supply in the spring of 1880, and 
five weeks as assistant in the autumn and winter of the same 
year: eight weeks all toldl Yet he chooses to let the people 
entertain the idea which they must gain from the quotation 
that he u was for many years one of the leading ministers 
among the Seventh-day Adventists, and until his change of 
denominational relationship, he was professor of Biblical exe- 
gesis in their College at Battle Creek." We leave the reader to 
wonder at the small residuum of fact that is left, after all the 
foam of this statement is evaporated. 

In the quotation taken from the Kalamazoo Telegraph, we 
find this statement : "At the time he dissolved his connection 
with them, he had the charge of eighteen churches in Mich- 
igan." The facts in this case are these : Seventh-day Ad- 
ventist churches maintain their regular worship without the 
assistance of any located pastors, leaving our entire ministry 
free to act as evangelists in new fields. As a consequence, 
many of our churches pass long periods without any preach- 
ing, and consequently Conference committees aim to arrange 
the labor in the State so that ministers will occasionally be at 
liberty to visit the churches, to help and encourage them in the 
Christian life by a few meetings. At a general meeting for 
the State of Michigan, held at Ithaca during the closing days 
of 1886, Eld. C. was present, and it was there arranged that 
the ministers of the State should spend a little time not fa- 
vorable for other work in making brief visits to the churches, 
each one being requested to take a certain district, so that the 
whole State might be covered. The district which Eld. Can- 
right was requested to visit, though no special charge was 
committed to him, contained, we presume, eighteen churches; 
we take his count for it. To enter upon this duty he left his 
work in the College, to which he never returned, and com- 
menced the visitation of these churches, which he never 
completed. And this is the extent of his 44 charge" of eight- 
een churches. 

He has also set the trumpet ringing through all the land over 
his wonderful achievements in authorship, keyed up to the 

following high pitch : 41 He is the author of more than a score 
of books and pamphlets published in the interest of the de- 
nomination." On this the shrinking process will be equally 
marked. His books are two: 44 The Bible from Heaven," 
300 pp., and the 44 History of the Doctrine of the Immortality 
of the Soul," 186 pp. The first is simply a revision of a vol- 
ume on the same subject originally written by Moses Hull, 
and not materially enlarged or improved ; the second is a 
compilation of unequivocal historical testimony showing that 
a doctrine which he was obliged to swallow in entering the 
Baptist Church, is of heathen origin. His pamphlets are 
four: 44 The Two Laws," 126 pp. ; 44 Ministration of Angels," 
144 pp. ; 44 Morality of the Sabbath," 96 pp. ; and 44 Matter 
and Spirit," 66 pp., all doctrinal works, the arguments of 
which he can never overthrow, and compared with which his 
present efforts against them are as pewter compared with 
steel. His tracts are fifteen : One 33 pp., two 24 pp. each, and 
the remaining twelve, necessary to make out the formidable 
array of 44 more than a score," are tracts of only 8 pp. each. 
Against the matter of any of these, we have nothing to say. 
They are readable and logical, and in some of them the ar- 
guments are exceedingly well put. But when the matter is 
represented in a way to convey the impression that the bulk 
of our literature has come from his pen, and that his depart- 
ure is calculated to materially w r eaken our cause in this re- 
spect, it is proper that the reader should know the facts in 
the case. 

We quote again : 44 At the time he dissolved his connection 
with them, he . . . was assistant editor of the Qospel Sickle, 
. . . and was writing the lessons for their Sabbath-schools 
throughout the world." At the time of which he speaks, the 
Sickle was conducted by an editorial committee of five, of 
which he was one, but was not the chairman. As to the 
Sabbath-school lessons, the permanent lessons are contained 
in a series of books of which he is not the author. The cur- 
rent lessons going through our youth's paper are furnished 
by various writers. Different ones had written up the sub- 
jects committed to them, and Eld. C. was then furnishing his 
quota, eleven in number, and the only ones he ever wrote. 
When persons are contemplating a strike, they generally 
choose a time when it will most embarrass their employers. 
So Eld. C, whether designedly or not, took a time to leave 
when there was opportunity to create the greatest sensation. 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

-26 — 

— 21 — 

A few months later he would not have been "professor" in 
the College, nor had "charge" of eighteen churches, nor 
been " writing the lessons for their Sabbath-schools through- 
out the world." 

In replying to Eld. Butler in reference to being considered 
for some years past "unreliable," he says : I " was teacher of 
theology in their Battle Creek College, where I had a class of 
nearly 200 under me, who studied my lessons." The force of 
the expression "my lessons" will be appreciated by the 
reader when we state that the lessons were the same that had 
been used in the College for years ; he simply copied from 
notes furnished to him, introducing but one new subject 
But worse than for him now to claim their authorship, was 
the evident misgiving which he manifested on some points 
before the class itself. So calculated were his hints and in- 
nuendoes to unsettle the minds of the students, that some of 
them came to the writer to know what it meant, asking if he 
was unsettled on such fundamental points of our faith. 

Speaking of Col. 3 : 16, he says :— 

"I have often wished that this text was not in the Bible, 
and it troubles my Seventh-day Adventist brethren as much 
as it did me, say what they will."— Jewish Sabbath Abol- 
ished, p. 6. 

Among the most surprising things connected with this case 
is the confession that he has long been doubtful about certain 
fundamental positions, and troubled over certain texts, Col. 
2 : 16 being one of them. We never had any trouble over this 
text, and we never knew a Seventh-day Adventist who had, 
till this surprising confession. But now he says he knows 
they all have trouble over it as much as himself ; and if any 
should deny it, that would make no difference ; he has had 
trouble over it, and hence everybody else has. The conceit 
which can thus lead a man to set himself up as the standard 
for a whole denomination, even to the extent of overriding 
any avowals which they may make to the contrary, is beyond 
comprehension. We shall claim the privilege of being the 
exponent of our own views, and setting forth authoritatively 
the position we hold on every text. There is scarcely a por- 
tion of Scripture in the New Testament simpler and easier to 
explain than Col. 2 : 14-17. 

But it may be asked, Why mention at all the matters re- 
ferred to in this article? Why not let them pass? The only 
occasion is that they are thrust before the public in a manner 

to give to the advocacy of error more prestige than it is entitled 
to. It is made to appear to the uninformed that the Advent- 
Ists have lost "their leader" ; and this supposed fact is vig- 
orously used not only in this country, but in foreign lands as 
well, to block the way of those who are zealously laboring at 
no small sacrifice to advance the cause of Bible reform. Under 
such circumstances duty demands that some of these bubbles 
of arrogance and conceit be punctured, and the world be per- 
mitted to understand how much of a leader we have lost. 
As elsewhere stated in this Supplement, the time was when 
Eld. Canright was a growing and promising man among us. 
We loved him as a brother, rejoiced in his successes, made 
the best of his mistakes, and stood ready to help him in 
every way possible. For many estimable qualities, unless he 
suffers them to be perverted to ignoble ends, we shall still es- 
teem him. But since he turned against his former views, and 
began his efforts to tear down the work, and hedge up the 
way of his former co-laborers, his course and his words have 
been most astonishing. U. Smith. 


Perhaps there is no point upon which Eld. Canright and 
others like him who start out in a raid against S. D. Advent- 
ists, try harder to excite prejudice against our people and 
draw sympathy to themselves, than upon the supposed 
"oppression" and "bondage" connected with this people- 
One would almost think there was some terrible inquisition, 
with thumb-screws, racks, and infernal machines hidden 
away somewhere, with which poor souls were tortured. We 
quote from Eld. Canright's article in the Michigan Christian 
Advocate of July 16, 1887, showing the terrible suffering (?) 
existing among our people. He gives extracts from private 
letters which he says he has received from some of our min- 
isters. One is supposed to say,— 

" 1 have had many blue times in my experience because of 
these doubts. . . . Once I decided I must follow the convic- 
tions of my own judgment in these things; but when the 
time came, the pressure was so strong that I tried to convince 
myself that 1 was wrong. . . . The facts are, I am just mis- 
erable. ... It seems a terrible thing to take a course that will 
cause all the cherished friends of this world to look upon you 
as one fallen from grace. And here 1 am bound with these 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 28 - 

— 29 — 

chains." And here the Elder adds : "And there he and 
hundreds of others remain to-day." 

Poor souls 1 What do they stay for if they desire so much 
to get away ? Why do they not step out and be free ? No 
one would hinder their going if they chose to do so. No one 
who ever left us received any in j ury from our people. If they 
go out and quietly attend to their own business, and let us 
alone, we always treat them as courteously as other people. 
But if they commence a raid upon us, we only defend our- 
selves as best we can, as we are now doing in his case. 

He quotes another : " It seems to me that the views held 
by Seventh-day Adventists are so burdensome that they will 
crush me. They are a yoke of bondage which I cannot stand 
up under." Says another: " How am I straitened while 
the fetters are being forged for most unwilling limbs ! . . . 
What a distress we are in as a people I How miserable 1 and 
is there no relief ? " " Another talented minister writes me," 
says the Elder : " Our ministers, and people as well, are grow- 
ing to be a denomination of hypocrites by a slavish fear of ex- 
pressing an honest belief. ... I am sick and disheartened 
. . . The basis of confidence is gone, and I shall only wait the 
come-out of this matter." Then another: u There is a fear 
on the part of the powers that be, of free thought and free 
discussion." And so on and so forth. If such stuff was not 
provoking, it would be simply amusing. What can men be 
thinking of to w r rite such twaddle, such nonsense as this, in 
these United States of America ? 

Here is a little, scattered, unpopular people, with small 
churches here and there, surrounded by all the popular relig- 
ious bodies of the land. If these persons prefer their fellow- 
ship to that of S. D. Adventists, why do they hesitate to step 
out and join them ? These churches would be most happy to 
welcome them. They rejoice greatly at such opportunities. 
Why should they stay with us a single hour if they feel so 
wretched in our communion? We are sure our people will 
gladly let them go if they are so miserable with us. And if 
they will not prejudice the people against us, and lie about 
us after they are gone, we are certain we will never speak a 
word to their detriment, but will always treat them courtr 
eously. If our fellowship is so irksome, they truly cannot 
desire it. For our part, we will most gladly welcome their 
departure if they feel so unhappy in our company. We have 
long desired to see the day when none should be called S. D. 

Adventists only those who heartily accept the doctrines they 

In what does this terrible suffering and oppression from 
which these ministers experience such agony consist ? Are 
they fearful they will not be supported well? Are they 
afraid they will come to want ? Or is it not the apprehension 
which reigns in their hearts in spite of their worldly desires, 
their darkness and unbelief, that, after all, the doctrines of this 
people are the truth of God, and that they jeopardize their 
soulswhen they apostatize from them? We firmly believe 
this is the difficulty with many of them. The truths held by 
this people are so plain, and the evidences that God is in this 
work are so strong, and the tokens of God's acceptance when 
they were whole-hearted in this truth were so convincing, that 
now, when they follow the leadings of unbelief and Satan's 
temptations, a fearful mental struggle ensues, and they are 
wretched indeed. Eld. Canright himself continued in this 
condition for years. God's Spirit strove with him a long time 
before he fully broke away from its restraining influences. 
Many a time the influences of God s Spirit were felt pow- 
erfully upon his heart. Then all was light, and God's bless- 
ing rested upon him. Then he had no difficulty whatever in 
seeing that God was with this people. He has not forgotten 
a meeting at Otsego, Mich., some four years since, when he 
stood upon his feet in the church there, and confessed this 
fact with great trembling and many tears. He said then he 
should never doubt that God was in this work. In his Con- 
fession (printed on another page) he himself states fully an- 
other similar experience. But when he cherished dark un- 
belief, the blessing of Heaven departed. The great struggle 
in his own heart continued till he finally cast aside all these 
evidences of the past, and wholly severed his connection with 
the work which he had hundreds of times before declared 
he knew to be the work of God. Then the struggle ceased. 
But, alas 1 his experience since then has shown too well what 
spirit now leads his mind. Others can obtain the same ex- 
perience if they choose, and find the same kind of rest in the 
same way. But such ventures are taken at a terrible cost. 

S. D. Adventists "oppress" no one. This effort to fix 
odium upon this people, comparing them to Catholics and 
Mormons as an "oppressive" people, is a wicked slander. 
History furnishes the record of millions of people put to 
death by Catholics, by the sword, the fagot, the rack, and the 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 30 — 

— 31 — 

dungeon. Wars of extermination were carried on, and the 
streets of cities were reddened with gore. Tortures, fires, 
imprisonments, and the horrors of the Inquisition speak of 
their "oppression." Mormons have put to death men, 
women, and children; have harassed those not of their faith, 
hunted those fleeing from them, and persecuted many in 
various ways. But we defy Eld. Canright and all the world 
to put their finger on a single instance in which S. D. Ad- 
ventists as a religious body have ever " oppressed " or injured 
unjustly anybody in life, limb, property, or character. 

This people believe in speaking the truth sometimes when 
it is not pleasant. They believe in what the apostle teaches 
as a duty of the ministry; viz., to "reprove, rebuke, exhort 
with all long-suffering and doctrine." 2 Tim. 4:2. There 
doubtless may have been instances where men in leading po- 
sitions have made mistakes and given reproof which was not 
deserved; but they supposed they were doing right, and apol- 
ogized when they found they were not All men are liable to 
such mistakes. But S. D. Adventists are a people who try "to 
do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with their 
God." We indignantly repel statements and insinuations 
carrying the impression that this people "oppress" anybody. 

G. I. B. 


In glancing through what Eld. Canright has written against 
what he claims constitutes the belief of S. D. Adventists, we 
have been surprised and pained to see how he perverts and 
garbles the testimony he quotes, and misrepresents our po- 
sitions in direct contradiction of what he has himself written 
and spoken a thousand times while with us. We have not 
space here to notice all the instances of this kind, nor is it 
necessary that we should do so. A few will answer as spec- 
imens of the whole, and show the reader the nature of the 
work he is doing. We call attention to a few as we chance to 
meet them in his writings. 

The first one we will notice is found on p. 6 of " Jewish 
Sabbath Abolished." Kef erring to the views set forth in the 
"History of the Sabbath," that there were in the Jewish sys- 
tem three annual feasts, and connected with these feasts 
seven annual sabbatlis, he says : — 

"So it is not correct to speak of 'the annual sabbaths,' 
much less to say there were seven of them. There was just 

one, and no more, and this one was included in the annual 
feast days. This even Eld. Andrews confesses. He says, 
'The annual sabbaths were part and parcel of these feasts.' 
—History of the Sabbath, p. 86." 

If the reader will take the trouble to look at the 11 History 
of the Sabbath," and see for himself what Eld. Andrews does 
teach, he will find he makes no such "confession " as Eld. C. 
charges him with. Chapter 7 of the work referred to is de- 
voted to an examination of "The Feasts, New Moons, and 
Sabbaths of the Hebrews." It opens as follows : — 

" We have followed the Sabbath of the Lord through the 
books of Moses. A brief survey of the Jewish festivals is 
necessary to a complete view of the subject before us. Of 
these there were three : the passover, the Pentecost, and the 
feast of tabernacles ; each new moon, that is, the first day of 
each month throughout the year ; then there were seven an- 
nual sabbaths, namely, h The first day of unleavened bread ; 
% The seventh day of that feast ; 3. The day of Pentecost ; 
4. The first day of the seventh month ; 5. The tenth day of 
that month ; 6. The fifteenth day of that month ; 7. The 
twenty-second of that month."— Hist. Sab., pp. 82, 83. On p. 
86 he says : "The annual sabbaths were part and parcel of 
these feasts, and could have no existence until after the 
feasts to which they belonged had been instituted." 

This the reader will see is very different from the way Eld. 
C. represents it Read again, " This one [10th of 7th month] 
was included in the annual feast days. This, even Eld. An- 
drews confesses." Eld. Andrews confesses no such thing. 
He says there were three feasts, and the annual sabbaths 
were part and parcel of these feasts, not " included in the an- 
nual feast days," as Eld. C. with notable lack of accuracy 
makes him say. The facts are these: There were three 
feasts, two of them covering a period of days ; the passover, 
seven days, the feast of tabernacles, seven days, followed by 
another day of rest and holy convocation. In the passover 
the first and seventh days were sabbaths, that is, days in 
which no servile work was done, and a holy convocation was 
held. In the feast of tabernacles the first and eighth days 
were sabbatlis of the same kind. But the time intervening 
between these sabbaths, the five in the passover and the six in 
the feast of tabernacles, all belonged to the feast ; for the 
feast covered the whole period. Each one of these days was 
a feast day, a heorte (copriy), but not a sabbath. But the first 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 32 — 

— 33 — 

and last days of these feasts were more than mere feast days; 
they were sabbaths. Eld. Andrews is careful, on p. 139 of his 
"History," to draw the distinction between the least day 
{eoQT?j) which Paul calls the holy day in Col. 2 : 16, and the 
sabbath days belonging to the same feast ; and while he 
says that the annual sabbaths were part and parcel of the 
/easts, as indeed they were, he does not say that they were 
included in the feast days. 

We can hardly restrain our pen from entering into an ex- 
amination of Eld. Canright's position on these annual festi- 
vals, and giving a full exposition of Col. 2 : 16, which has sud- 
denly become such a mountain before him, and which he 
thinks troubles us so greatly. But this does not come within 
the scope of this paper ; and there is not space to devote to 
it here. 

He sets forth Elds. T. M. Preble and J. B. Cook, who kept 
the Sabbath a brief period and then gave it up, as the real 
fathers and founders of the present Seventh-day Adventist 
movement ; which he thinks makes a bad showing for the 
movement. It would make these men smile to think they 
were the founders of the S. D. A. movement So far as Ad- 
ventists' embracing the Sabbath is concerned, other Advent- 
ists commenced its observance in advance of them. But no 
idea of this movement then existed, and the connection of the 
Sabbath reform with prophecy was not then discerned. An- 
drews's "History of the Sabbath " is quoted in proof of the 
foregoing statement ; but Andrews shows how they regarded 
it of no practical importance, and as a very natural conse- 
quence soon ceased to keep it. Not till worthier and more 
stable men took hold of it did this movement really begin. 

He says again : " They claim that it is an actual historical 
fact that at a certain time about 500 years after Christ, the 
pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday." A bare-faced 
misrepresentation. See the lecture by D. M. C. himself 
on this point, in the spring of 1885, in which he explains the 
matter very differently, according to our faith which he then 
held. That the reader may see for himself, we quote a few 
paragraphs ("Tabernacle Lectures," Lecture Ten, p. 76) : — 

"We have shown, said he, during the past two or three 
evenings, that the seventh day was God's original Sabbath ; 
that it was kept as such from the beginning, and that there is 
no Bible authority for a change. Last evening we examined 
every text in the New Testament which is even hinted at as 

authority for the change, and found nothing to support it 
Yet there has been a change. God's people once kept the 
seventh day, and now nearly all Christendom are doing other- 
wise. When and where was the change made ? 

"Let me call your attention again to the prophecy in 
Dan. 7 : 25, which has been very clearly shown in these lect- 
ures to refer to an apostate power, called by Paul, in 2 Thess. 2, 
'the man of sin,' and recognized by all Protestants as the 
Roman Catholic Church. The New Testament writers recog- 
nize the fact that very early in the Christian era there was to 
be a falling away from the true faith. 

" In Acts 20 : 29, Paul says, to the elders of Ephesus, that 
after he left them grievous wolves would enter in, not sparing 
the flock, and that even of their own selves men should arise, 
and draw people away from the truth. 1 John 4 : 3 speaks of 
the spirit of antichrist as even then already in the world, 
while Paul, in 2 Thess. 2, before referred to, states that the 
falling away, or apostasy (Greek), had already commenced its 
work, even right in the bosom of the apostolic church. 

" Now it is a very common error to suppose that a practice 
which is very old, and can be traced back to somewhere near 
the apostolic church, must be correct. But this is an evident 
mistake, for apostasy commenced so early that there is no 
saf ety in accepting tradition on any subject. Our only safety 
is the Scriptures themselves. Protestants claim to rely wholly 
on this authority, leaving tradition to Catholics ; and yet, on 
this subject, as well as some others, they follow Rome, be- 
cause the Bible gives them no help. 

"Now, what was to be the special work of this apostate 
power ? The prophecy in Dan. 7 : 25 shows that his efEorts 
w r ere to be directed against the Most High,— he would speak 
great words against the Most High, wear out the saints of the 
Most High, and think to change times and laws, evidently the 
laws of the Most High, also, as the change of human laws 
would not be worthy of notice in prophecy, nor peculiar to 
this power. 

"The law of Gods [pointing to the ten commandments] is 
recognized as his rule of action for man. Nine of these pre- 
cepts are acknowledged by ail Christians to be binding. The 
other is in dispute, and strangely enough it is the only one 
that has time in it The first three and last six are entirely 
silent on the subject of time, but the fourth is based upon it, 
and its obligation rests entirely in time and its correct recog- 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 34 — 

nition. The prophecy asserts that this apostate power thinks 
to change times ; and when we seek for the fulfillment, we 
find that power claiming openly to have done the very thing 
predicted, as proved by the extracts read to you by Eld. Butler 
on this subject 

"The dominion of that power was 1260 years. In Kev. 12 
we have a prophecy which shows that the church would be in 
a 4 wilderness ? state 1260 years, and when it emerges from 
that condition it reforms itself, and 4 keeps the commandments 
of God and the faith of Jesus,' that being a characteristic of 
the remnant, or last end, of the church. 

"Now the question arises, Just when did the practice of 
Sunday-keeping commence ? No one can tell exactly. Why ? 
If the change had been made by divine authority, we could 
put our finger on the exact point, and show where it was 
done. But, like all error, its introduction was gradual. You 
cannot follow a river into the ocean, and put your finger down 
and say, There, just at that spot the fresh water stops and the 
salt water begins ; neither can you tell where Sabbath-keep- 
ing stopped and Sunday-observance began, as there was a 
gradual mingling of truth and error. 

44 You will hear men say with all confidence that, while the 
seventh day was kept to the crucifixion, the practice of the 
church since then has been unanimous in keeping the first 
day. I do not see how a man can be honest and say this, 
unless he is very ignorant, as the most trustworthy historians, 
themselves Sunday-keepers, too, testify to the contrary. 

44 Mr. Morer says: 4 The primitive Christians had a great 
veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion 
and sermons/ Prof. Brerewood, in his treatise, p. 77, says: 
4 The Sabbath of the seventh day was religiously observed in 
the east church three hundred years after our Saviour's pas- 
sion. That church being a great part of Christendom, and 
having the apostle's doctrine and example, would have been 
restrained if it had been deadly."' 

44 Dr. John Ley, in 'Sunday Sabbath,' p. 163, says : 4 From 
the apostles' time until the Council of Laodicea, which was 
about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jewish Sab- 
bath continued, as may be proved out of many authors.' 

44 Prof. Stuart, of Andover, himself a Sunday-keeper and a 
recognized evangelical author and teacher, in his Appendix to 
'Guraey's History of the Sabbath,' p. 115, says : 4 The prac- 
tice of it [keeping the Sabbath] was continued by Christians 

— 35 — 

who were jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, and finally 
became, as we have seen, predominant throughout Christen- 

44 The historian Socrates (book 5, chap. 22) says : 4 For al- 
though almost all churches throughout the world celebrate 
the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the 
Christians of Alexandria and at Rome refuse to do so.' We 
see here that Rome was among the first to forsake God's Sab- 
bath, and the Romish Church was the one that finally became 
the great apostate. 

41 Dr. Neander, in 4 Church History,' p. 168, says: 'The 
festival Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a 
human ordinance ; and it was far from the intention of the 
apostles to establish a divine commandment in this respect— far 
from them, and from the early apostolic church to transfer 
the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.' 

44 Dr. Neander here calls Sunday a festival, and a human 
ordinance. When it was introduced, it did not come in as a 
Sabbath. Look at the word itself, 4 Sunday.' Webster de- 
fines it as 4 so called, because this day was anciently dedicated 
to the sun ;' and the North British Review styles it 'the 
wild solar holiday of all pagan times.' Now, how did it creep 
into the church ? I ? 11 tell you how. When the early Chris- 
tians evangelized the heathen tribes, they would go to the head, 
or chief, and labor with him to convince him of the superiority 
of the Christian religion. If he became convinced, he would 
command his entire tribe to be baptized. They were pagans, 
and had kept Sunday as a festival in honor of one of their 
gods, the sun ; and when they outwardly accepted Christian- 
ity, they kept up their observance of Sunday, which gradu- 
ally supplanted the Lord's Sabbath. And while some of 
these might have been soundly converted, there is evidence 
to show that though the Sabbath was kept, Sunday was also 
observed as a kind of holiday, but with no idea of sacredness 
attached to it 

"Kitto, the historian, says: 'Though in later times we find 
considerable reference to a sort of consecration of the day, it 
does not seem at any period of the ancient church to have 

assumed the form of such an observance Chrysostom 

f a. p. 360) concludes one of his homilies by dismissing his 
audience to their respective ordinary occupations.' How 
would our modern church-members think they were keeping 
Sunday, to go home from church and go to carpenter or 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 36 — 

blacksmith work, or building stone wall? And yet they tell 
us they are keeping Sunday as the primitive Christians did. 

"Bishop Jeremy Taylor (book 2, ch. 2) says : 'The prim- 
itive Christians did all manner of work upon the Lord's day 
[meaning Sunday], even in the times of persecution, when 
they are the strictest observers of all divine commandments; 
but to this they knew there was none.* 

41 The first command for Sunday-keeping was the decree of 
Constantine, A. d. 321 : * Let all the judges and towns-people, 
and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day 
of tlie sun ; but let those who are situated in the country, 
freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agricult- 
ure.' Speaking of the effect of this decree concerning the 
first day of the week, the historian Mosheim says that in con- 
sequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, [it was] 
observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.' 

"And so we might trace the history down through the first 
centuries. The observance of Sunday, introduced as a hol- 
iday, or festival, gradually assumed more importance as a ri- 
val of Clod's Sabbath, until, by the influx of half converted 
pagans into the church, bringing with them their solar hol- 
iday, it began to supplant its divinely appointed rival. The 
Council of Laodicea, A. d. 364, decreed the observance of 
Sunday, and anathematized the keeping of the Sabbath. 
From that time on, the two days seem to have been strug- 
gling for the supremacy. The claim of the Sabbath being 
scriptural, and that of Sunday being a matter of custom or 
convenience, the ascendency seems to have been given ac- 
cording as conscience or policy willed. It was not until the 
Council of Orleans, A. D. 538, that Sunday labor in the 
country was prohibited, and thus, as Dr. Paley remarked, it 
became l an institution of the church,' and of that church 
into whose hands the saints, times, and laws were to be given 
for 1260 years ; and it may be something more than a coinci- 
dence that A. d. 538 was the beginning of that period." 

Such is the language of Eld. C. himself upon this point in 
1885. Upon the question of the candor of a person who can 
make such an assertion as first above quoted, only two years 
after he had himself explained the point In the lecture as 
above given, we make no comments. We leave the reader 
to judge for himself. 

On the change of the Sabbath he says : 11 But the only proof 
offered is simply quotations from Catholic Catechisms." We 

— 37 — 

ask the reader to peruse any of the works published by S. D. 
Adventists on this subject, and see if this is the "only proof" 
we have to offer. When he has done this he wDl be as much 
astonished as we are at such an utterance. It is refuted also 
by Eld. C.'s own words quoted above. 

Eld. C. quotes from "The Complete Testimony of the Fa- 
thers " very unfairly, as a few extracts will show. In putting 
forth a historical argument to show that Sunday was called 
the Lord's day and was observed as a sacred day by the Chris- 
tian church immediately after the days of the apostles he 
says :— 

" The Lord's day, then, is the day belonging to the Lord 
Jesus, as * he is Lord of all ' (Acts 10 : 36), and 4 Head over all 
things' (Eph. 1 : 22) in the gospel. We shall find this fact 
abundantly confirmed in the Fathers. I now quote from 
4 The Complete Testimony of the Fathers,' by Eld. An- 

44 'Justin's " Apology " was written at Rome about the year 
1407 4 He is the first person after the sacred Writers that 
mentions the first day, and this at a distance of only forty- 
four years from the date of John's vision upon Patmos. , * It 
does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who held with 
him in the doctrine, paid the slightest regard to the ancient 
Sabbath. He speaks of it as abolished, and treats it with con- 
tempt.' Pages 33, 36. 

" This is the confession which even the historian of the 
Seventh-day Adventists is compelled to make. The Jewish 
Sabbath was wholly disregarded by Christians within forty- 
four years of the death of the last apostle. And this is proved 
by the testimony of the very first Christian writer who men- 
tions 'the first day after the apostles. Does Eld. Andrews 
question the genuineness or truthfulness of this statement? 
—Not at all." 

We have given these three paragraphs in full, that the 
reader may be able to see fully how Eld. C. can treat the 
writings of others to suit his purpose. We have expressed 
surprise at his efforts to pervert and garble testimony. « Gar- 
ble" is defined to mean, "to pick out or select such parts as 
may serve a purpose."- Webster. This quotation from " The 
Testimony of the Fathers" is made, remember, to prove that 
the Sabbath was discarded, and that Sunday was recognized 
as the Lord's day by the Christians of that early time; and 
now let us see what Eld. Andrews does really say 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 38 - 

— 39 — 

* Justin's 4 Apology ' was written at Rome about the year 
140 A. d. His 1 Dialogue with Trypho the Jew ' was written 
some years later. In searching his works we shall see how 
much greater progress apostasy had made at Home than in 
the countries where those lived whose writings we have been 

Thus Eld. Andrews's first reference to Justin is to show that 
Rome was far in advance of other bodies on the course of 
apostasy, and that Justin was himself a leader in that work. 
In proof of this he introduces testimony that he treated God's 
Sabbath with contempt, denied its origin at creation, taunted 
the Jews that it was given to them because of their wicked- 
ness, and denied the perpetuity of the ten commandments. 
Pages 33, 34. As to the next sentence in Eld. C.'s quotation, 
let us give it entire from Eld. Andrews :— 

u And it is worthy of notice that though first-day writers as- 
sert that 1 Lord's day ' was the familiar title of the first day of 
the week in the time of the Apocalypse, yet Justin, who is the 
first person after the sacred writers that mentions the first 
day, and this at a distance of only 44 years from the date of 
John's vision upon Patmos, does not call it by that title, but 
by the name it bore as a lieatTien festival. If it be said that 
the term was omitted because he was addressing a heathen 
emperor [just what Canright does now say], there still remains 
the fact that he mentions the day quite a number of times in 
his 'Dialogue with Trypho,' and yet never calls it 'Lord's 
day,' nor indeed does he call it by any name implying sacred- 

This was written to show that Justin neither called Sunday 
the Lord's day nor regarded it as such; but all of it which 
proves this, Eld. C. carefully omits, and takes out a little 
slice from one part of it, so far as it does not seem to 
contradict the point he is attempting to prove; namely, that 
J ustin did regard Sunday as the Lord's day. And then Eld. 
Andrews is represented as being obliged to lt confess " that 
the "Sabbath was wholly disregarded by Christians [a sweep- 
ing statement, embracing all Christians] within forty-four 
years of the death of the last apostle ; " when all he says is 
that Justin and a few who held with him in Rome, had turned 
against the Sabbath, because they were so fast becoming 
apostates 1 

The quotation given from Justin on pp. 34, 35 ("Testimony 
of the Fathers"), about meeting together on "the day called 

Sunday," etc., Eld. C. gives in full to show that Justin did re- 
gard Sunday as the Lord's day, though he gives it no such 
name, nor any title of sacredness. But on p. 37 Eld. A. gives 
a quotation from Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho," which 
shows that he regarded all days alike. He calls the gospel 
" the new law," and says :— 

" The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and 
you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, 
not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you 
eat unleavened bread you say the will of God has been ful- 
fil led. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such ob- 
servances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among 
you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; 
then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God." 

Upon which Eld. Andrews remarks: "This language 
plainly implies that Justin held all days alike, and did not 
observe any one day as a day of abstinence from labor." Yet 
the attempt is made by these misrepresentations to wheel 
Justin in as a witness for Sunday-keeping. 

Most astonishing to relate, Eld. C. quotes the epistle of Bar- 
nabas in favor of his position. Now he well knows that every 
critic pronounces that so-called epistle the work of a Jew of 
mean abilities and an absolute forgery. Yet, when reviewing 
Eld. Andrews in his notice of this work, he says:— 

"They [the early Fathers] lived early enough to have con- 
verse with the apostles themselves, while he [Eld. Andrews] 
lived eighteen hundred years later I Which would be apt to 
know best?" 

Yes; but here is a man who claims to be a Father who was 
not; a man who was a fraud, an impostor, a forger. The 
question is, What do the Scriptures teach? and we have the 
Scriptures as fully as he. Now we ask, Who would be apt to 
give us the best exposition of Scripture ? an old forger of the 
second century who wrote things too silly to be repeated, and 
too shameful to quote? or a Christian scholar of the nineteenth ? 
It will take no reader a great while to answer. Eld. Canright 
can take the forger if he prefers. 

In his fourth article in the Advocate, he says : " Let us see 
what Seventh-day Adventists say upon the sin of Sunday- 
keeping: 'All who keep the first day for the Sabbath are 
pope's Sunday-keepers, and God's Sabbath-breakers.'-ffia- 
tory of the Sabbath, p. 502." 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 40 — 

— 41 — 

The "History of the Sabbath" never said this, as Eld. C. 
affirms. It was not said by Seventh-day Adventists, as he de- 
clares. It is simply a quotation from T. M. Preble, which 
Eld. Andrews presents to show how'his mind was led as lie 
began to publish upon this question. The whole extract reads 
as follows, as quoted from the Hope of Israel of Feb. 22, 

44 Thus we see Dan. 7 : 25 fulfilled, the little horn changing 
'times and laws/ Therefore it appears to me that all who 
keep the first day for the Sabbath are pope's Sunday-keepers, 
and God's Sabbath-breakers." 

Were Eld. Andrews alive to deal with such perversions of 
his work as they deserve, it would not seem quite so bad. 
But a due reverence for his memory demands that such things 
be not left to pass wholly unnoticed. 

Here is another : M Sunday-keeping • is in reality one of the 
most enormous of all errors.'" This purports to be taken 
from 44 ' Marvel of Nations,' by U. Smith, p. 181." If the reader 
will turn to the page and read, instead of the sentiment here 
expressed, he will find the following:— 

11 'But,' says one, 4 1 supposed that Christ changed the Sab- 
bath.' A great many suppose so; and it is natural that they 
should, for they have been so taught And while we have no 
words of denunciation to utter against any such persons for 
so believing, we would have them at once understand that it 
is in reality one of the most enormous of all errors." 

The reader can draw his own conclusions. 

His fifth article must have been very edifying reading to 
the subscribers of the Advocate, being composed mostly of 
historical extracts from a work published by S. D. Adventists 
themselves more than twenty years ago, showing that there 
have been Sabbath-keepers all through the Christian age, and 
that God has never left himself without witnesses to this an- 
cient truth. And now comes one of the grossest attempts at 
perversion that can well be conceived. He asserts that we 
claim that the light and truth on the Sabbath question had 
never been given to the world before it was set forth by this 
people. We will let him express it in his own words :— 

44 This confession of their champion writer upsets one of the 
main arguments of the Seventh-day Adventists. They hold 
that the light on this Sabbath question was reserved in the 
special providence of God, to be brought out as a test in this 

last generation. Thus Mrs. White claims to have been shown 
this by the Lord in vision: 4 1 saw that the present test on the 
Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the 
holy place was finished, and he had passed within the second 
vail; therefore, Christians who fell asleep before the door 
was opened in the most holy, when the midnight cry was fin- 
ished at the seventh month in 1844, and had not kept the true 
Sabbath, now rest in hope ; for they had not the light and test 
on the Sabbath which we now have since that door was 
opened.'— Experience and Views, p. 25. 

"Now, the stubborn facts of history, even as presented in 
their own 4 History of the Sabbath,' show that this statement 
is not true; for substantially the same arguments which Sab- 
batarians are now giving to the world have been given over 
and over again by Sabbatarians for ages in the past. Yet 
nearly ail who are led into keeping the seventh day, are led 
there with the idea that this is a new truth to which the at- 
tention of the church and the world has never been called be- 
fore since the early apostasy in the church." 44 What, then, 
becomes of the claim that this is a new truth and the light 
upon it has never been given before ?" 41 And yet this is a 
new question, come up in our day, upon which the light has 
never been given before." 44 And yet Mrs. White says that 
nobody has had the light on this Sabbath question till after 
1844 ! " 44 In the ignorance and simplicity of my youth, when 
I was ensnared into keeping the seventh day, I knew nothing 
of these historical facts about these numerous attempts in 
the past to resurrect that day. And it is so with those who 
are being led into it now. They honestly think that it is a brand 
new truth, and the grandest movement ever inaugurated in 
religious reform 1" 44 Yet it is now claimed that the world 
never had the light on the Sabbath question till Seventh-day 
Adventists rose up to give it In the light of the above facts, 
what a modest claim that is 1 99 

We have given these extracts at length to show how much 
he makes of this point. Now, will some one kindly harmo- 
nize these assertions with the fact that this people published, 
and for twenty years have been pushing the sale of, the very 
book from which the historical extracts are taken which show 
that the Sabbath has been kept and more or less agitated all 
through this age? Is it possible that the whole body have 
been as stupid as he tries to represent himself as being ? One 
Of the grandest facts we have to present is that God has al- 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 42 — 

ways had witnesses to his holy Sabbath from the days of 
Adam till now; but that does^not preclude a special move- 
ment of reform upon the subject in the last days. And the 
one single, simple thing meant by calling this "new light " 
"new truth," " Sabbath reform," etc., is the connection of the 
Sabbath truth with prophecy and the work of the Sanctuary 
in heaven; and this light the world never has had, and never 
could have, till the prophecies were developed which give it. 
This, and nothing more, is what sister White means by the 
present test on the Sabbath;" it is the Sabbath as viewed 
m the light of Christ's ministry in the most holy place of the 
Sanctuary. John says (Rev. 11 : 19) that under the sounding 
of the seventh angel, which must certainly be near the end 
"the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was 
seen in his temple the* ark of his testament" The sight of 
the ark implies an earnest consideration of the law contained 
m the ark, and light in reference to it; and when this proph- 
ecy is fulfilled, although the Sabbath may have been kept all 
along before, will not new strength and force be added to the 
argument for the Sabbath and law by this fulfillment ?-Most 
assuredly. But the importance of the Sabbath, from this 
stand-point, was not received from S. D. Baptists, nor any 
other people past or present, but only from the fulfillment of 
prophecy, as the great prophetic period of the 2300 days 
ended m 1844, and the temple of God in heaven was opened 
There are, of course, arguments to be urged from the Script- 
ures in favor of the Sabbath as an independent institution 
not connected with anything else; and these would be com- 
mon to all. They would, as Eld. Andrews says, be " substan- 
tially the same in all ages." But arguments in its behalf 
drawn from the fulfillment of prophecies which point out a 
work of reform on this great truth in the last days, belong 
to that time alone. And this is just the situation to-day. And 
it is this connection with prophecy which gives the Sabbath 
truth a vitality in this generation which it has not enjoyed 
before. In the light of these facts, the declaration that "it 
is now claimed that the world never had the light on the 
Sabbath question till Seventh-day Adventiste rose up to give 
it," is made without thought, or without conscience. 

So we might go on and examine his representations that we are 
time-setters, make the Sabbath a test of holiness, use decep- 
tion in our methods of work, apply the mark of the beast ages 
m the past, believe in the keeping of the same absolute time 

— 43 — 

for the Sabbath, etc, etc. ; but we will not spend time on these 
points which those who have any acquaintance with our faith 
know so well how to answer. 

There is, however, another point which demands a word of 
notice, it is the assertion that some of our brethren have 
found it impossible to go by sunset time in high Northern lat- 
itudes, and so have changed to 6 o'clock time, by the advice or 
at least the concurrence of our General Conference. The gen- 
eral objection he states as follows:— 

"Now test the definite seventh-day theory in the frozen re- 
gions of the North. The day must be kept from sunset to 
sunset (Lev. 23 : 32) . But in the winter there are months when 
the sun is not seen there at all, so they have no sunset And 
again, there are months when the sun is above the horizon all 
the time, when there is no sunset Here the theory breaks 
down entirely, and the day must be reckoned by artificial 

On this point we will let Eld. C. answer himself. In "Tab- 
ernacle Lectures," p. 178, he says :— 

"How can you keep the seventh-day Sabbath at the north 
pole, where it is six months day and six months night ? Let 
me ask in return, How can you keep Sunday there ? Does n't 
Sunday follow the Sabbath at the north pole ? But let us see 
if there is such a thing as a weekly Sabbath at the north pole. 
In the accounts of the explorations of Dr. Kane, Lieut. Greely, 
and others, we find they did such and such things on Tues- 
day, went to such a place on Friday, etc. Now, that was dur- 
ing the 4 six months night' But the days are measured off 
just as accurately as here, and the week has its apportioned 
place, together with the Sabbath, which can be found and 
kept in the arctic regions, if any one wants to keep it there. 
The north star and the 1 dipper ' give the earth's revolutions as 
plainly as the sun does to us." 

If these statements are facts, they explain the matter fully, 
and clear the subject of all difficulty. Now, has Eld. C. discov- 
ered any evidence to show that these are not facts ? If he has, 
he should confess it If he has not, his present position shows 
a willful rejection of common intelligence. This fact is what 
makes Eld. C.'s position so peculiar. A man can give a sen- 
sible reason for changing his position, when he secures 
new evidence and receives additional light But he has 
no new light to present, nor a new argument or additional 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 45 — 

reason, which he did not have twenty years ago, and which 
have seemed to him all these years utterly insufficient to meet 
t he force of Sabbath arguments. But suddenly he discovers 
that all these old objections to the Sabbath are sound and un- 
answerable, and all the Sabbath arguments which have seemed 
to him so strong and substantial, turn out all at once to be 
mere mist and moonshine. The change is in the man, not in 
the evidence. He continues :— 

"They keep one seventh of the time, and that is absolutely 
all that can be dona [That is just the thing that can't be 
done In going round the world. But we will not stop to ar- 
gue the point here.] Seventh-day Adventiste have argued that 
there was no real difficulty here ; it was all imaginary. But 1 
happen to know that they themselves have got into serious 
trouble right there. They have churches located so far north 
in Norway that in winter the sun sets at 2 p. M . Nearly all 
the brethren work in mills. Of course they must lose Satur- 
day any way. Then if they begin at sunset they cannot work 
* nday afternoon. This breaks up the time so that they could 
not get work nor make a living. So it was decided to begin 
the day at 6 p. m., instead of sunset In this way they would 
work four hours after the seventh day began. Mrs. White 
and her son, Eld. W. C. White, were there, and favored the 
change. This, it will be seen, abandoned the whole definite- 
day theory. In the fall of 1885 1 was on a theological commit- 
tee to investigate tins case, and hence know how it was." 

This language is calculated to convey the impression uni- 
formly and inevitably, though it slyly refrains from asserting 
it directly, that this change was actually made in Norway, and 
the General Conference sanctioned it. The facts are these: 
We do not deny that there is some inconvenience, under some 
circumstances, in keeping the seventh day in a nation of Sun- 
day-keepers. That inconvenience is somewhat increased, even 
in this latitude, when the sun sets earlier than six o'clock. It 
Is still more largely increased in those latitudes where the 
sun sets at one season of the year as early as 2 p.m. A few 
brethren in the northern settlements of Norway, under these 
circumstances, raised the query whether it might not be 
proper for them to take the usual reckoning of the working- 
day from 6 to 6. But they would not adopt such a view nor 
enter upon such a practice before it had been submitted to 
the General Conference, and received its approval. This is 
why the question came before the committee referred to; and 

when it did so come up, the verdict was speedy and unan- 
imous that the brethren ought there as elsewhere to go by sun 
time. And so no ciuinge was imide. It will be noticed that 
the question was not one of difficulty to tell when the 
day began and ended, as governed by the sun, but was only 
one of convenience, inasmuch as it interfered with so large 
a portion of what the world still considered the working 
hours of the sixth day. Of course the persons could start 
in with their work again at 2 p. m., on Saturday, when the 
sun went down on that day, and hence would lose only their 
twenty-four hours. u. 8. 


We have thought it might edify the readers of this 
pamphlet to have the privilege of reading both sides 
of an argument on the law and Sabbath question from 
the pen of Eld. Canright. It is not often that we can 
find a man who can perform the feat of arguing both 
sides of an important theological question with such 
positiveness, and such triumphant satisfaction, and such 
assurance of success. Such a discussion will be unique. 
It will be an illustration of remarkable versatility of mind 
when a man can say such strong things, squarely con- 
tradicting each other, on opposite sides of the same ques- 
tion. The Elder will pose as something of a theolog- 
ical acrobat. For the convenience of the reader, that he 
may be able to take in the matter at a glance, we will 
arrange these in two columns, side by side, and head 
them, — 


"That circumcision, sacrifi- 
ces, the Levitical priesthood, 
distinction of meats, clean and 
unclean, the feast days, new 
moons, sabbatical year, and 
the Jewish Sabbath, were all 
set aside by the gospel, is as 
plainly taught as any Bible 
truth. 1. Circumcision: *If ye 
be circumcised, Christ shall 
profit you nothing.' Gal. 5:2. 


"We are now prepared to 
show that the law of Moses, 
the ceremonial law, relating to 
the whole typical system of 
the Old Testament, such as 
the priesthood, the sacrifices, 
circumcision, etc., etc., to- 
gether with those civil pre- 
cepts which God granted on 
account of their blindness and 
hardness of heart, of which we 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 46- 

— 47 — 


2. Sacrifices: ' Sacrifice and of- 
fering . . . thou wouldest not.' 
See all of Heb. 10 : 1-10. 3. 
Priesthood: 4 The priesthood 
being changed.' Heb. 7: 12. 
4. Sabbatical years: 'Ye observe 
days, and months, and times, 
and years. I am afraid of 
you.' Gal. 4 : 10, 11. 5. 
Meats, feast days, new moons, 
and sabbath days: 'Let no 
man therefore judge you in 
meat, or in drink, or in respect 
of a holy day [feast day. R. 
V.], or of the new moon, or of 
the sabbath days; which are a 
shadow of things to come; but 
the body is of Christ.' Col. 2 : 
16, 17. No one questions at 
all with regard to any of these 
terms except 'the sabbath 
days.' But this is just as 
plain as any of them, except 
to those who dare not admit 
its most manifest meaning, 
lest it overthrow their theory. 
That this does refer to the 
Jewish weekly Sabbath is 
manifest from many facts." 
— Canright in Mich. Christian 
Advocate of Oct. i, 1887. 

In another column of the 
Advocate of the same date be 
quotes CoL 2 : 16 again, and 
adds: "Here, as before, are 
the yearly, monthly, and 
weekly holy days, just as laid 
down in the law (Num. 28 and 
29) where we know the weekly 
Sabbaths are meant. It is 
evident that Paul had in his 
mind those lists of holy days 
so often given in the Old Tes- 
tament, where the Sabbath is 


have spoken before, was abol- 
ished at the cross, and that 
these were the only laws there 
abrogated. Every passage 
which speaks of a law being 
done away refers to these, 
never to the ten command- 
ments or any moral precept or 
teaching of the Old Testa- 
ment. The whole typical sys- 
tem pointed directly to Christ. 
Col. 2 : 14-17. When he 
came, in the very nature of 
things it must cease. But 
why should any moral precept 
be done away there ? There 
is neither reason nor Scripture 
for such a position. We will 
consider in its order every pas- 
sage which speaks of the abo- 
lition of any law." — Canright 
in Two Laws, pages 25, 26. 

"We have a plain statement 
in the New Testament to that 
effect whenever any of the 
rites or institutions of the Old 
Testament were done away. 
Was circumcision abolished? 
— Yes ; and here is the proof : 
' Behold, I Paul say unto you, 
that if ye be circumcised, 
Christ shall profit you noth- 
ing.' Gal. 5 : 2. But where 
is it said that the Sabbath is 
not to be observed ? 

"Again, was the Levitical 
priesthood abolished ? — Y e s ; 
and here is the text : ' For the 
priesthood being changed.' 
Heb. 7: 12. That settles that 
question. But where is it said 
that the Sabbath was changed ? 

" Again, the sacrifices of the 
old dispensation were abol- 
ished when Christ died. This 


"But it is argued that as 
'the sabbath days' of Col. 2: 
16 'are a 6hadow of things to 
came' (verse 17), and the 
weekly Sabbath is a memorial 
of creation, pointing back to 
the beginning, therefore they 
cannot be the same; for the 
Sabbath could not point both 
ways. But is not this a mere 
assertion without any proof? 
How do we know that it cannot 
point both ways ? The pass- 
over was a memorial of their 
deliverance from Egypt, and 
always pointed back to that 
event. Ex. 12 : 11-17. Yet 
it was also a shadow of Christ. 
Col. 2:16, 17. 'Even Christ 
our passover is sacrificed for us.' 
1 Cor. 5:7. So all those an- 
nual f easts were types of Christ 
in some way, and yet all were 
memorials also of past events, 
as all know, . . . Paul says 
plainly that the sabbath days 
are a shadow of things to come ; 
and one plain statement of In- 
spiration is worth a thousand 
of our vain reasonings. This 
is in harmony with Paul's ar- 
gument in Heb. 4: 1-11, that 
the seventh day is a type. For 
forty yeare we have tried to 
explain away this text, and 
to show that it really cannot 
mean what it says ; but there 
it stands, and mocks all our 
theories. The Sabbath is a 
type, for Inspiration says so." — 
Canright in Advocate of Oct. 1. 


is plainly declared in Heb. 10 : 
1-10. 'He taketh away the 
first, that he may establish the 
second.' Verse 9. But where 
is it said that the Lord took 
away the first Sabbath and es- 
tablished the second? " — 
Christian Sabbath, p. 2. 

In Eld. Canright's " Critical 
Notes," published at the be- 
ginning of this very year 
(1887), he says:— 

Co/ossians 2 : 14—17. 

"1. 'Blotting out' could 
not apply to engraved stones. 

"2. ' Hand writing.' Dec- 
alogue written by the finger of 
God. Ex. 31: 18. Of the 
other law it is often said, ' by 
the hand of Moses.' Gal. 3: 
19. 'By the hand of Moses' 
occurs twenty-four times in 
the Old Testament. Lev. 10 : 
11, etc. 

"3. 'Ordinances' cannot 
apply to the moral law. 

"4. 'Against us.' Which 
of the ten commandments is 
against us? Not the Sab- 
bath (Mark 2: 27; Isa. 58: 
13) ; nor any of them. 

"5. ' Nailing.' Could not 
nail stone; but could parch- 

"6. 'Meats, drinks,' etc. 
Verse 16. These show what 
law is meant. None of these 
are in the decalogue, hence it 
cannot be that law. 
"7. 'Holy day.' Greek, 

zooTTjq (heorteee), means feast 


" 8. • Moon ' not in the decalogue, but is in the ceremonial law. 
"9. 'Sabbath days.' Which? Verse 17. Those which 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 48 — 

— 49 — 


are shadows; but the 7th day is not a shadow, hut a memorial, 
and points back. Ex. 20 : 11." 

In his pamphlet on the "Two Laws," after quoting CoL 
2: 14-17, he says:— 

"It can be clearly shown that there is not one reference 
in all this to the moral law or the seventh-day Sabbath. On 
this Dr. Adam Clarke says: 'By the handwriting of ordinances 
the apostle most evidently means the ceremonial law.'' (Com- 
ment on verse 14.) Look at the figures used. ' Blotting ouV 
That which was written on parchment in books, as was the 
ceremonial law, could be blotted out with a wet sponge. (See 
Num. 5: 23.) But it would be improper and absurd to talk of 
blotting out what was engraven in stones, as was the decalogue. 
1 Handvrriting.'* The ceremonial law was the handwriting of 
Moses, but the decalogue was written by the finger of God. 
Ex. 31 : 18. 1 Of ordinances.' 1 Here is further proof that it 
is the law of ceremonial ordinances which is meant. Com- 
pare with Hcb. 9 : 10 : ' Which stood only in meats and drinks ; 
and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them 
until the time of reformation.' Then there was a law which 
stood only in these carnal ordinances of meats, drinks, etc., the 
very things of which the apostle speaks in Colossians. Mark 
that these were imposed on them as a burden. So in Eph. 2 : 
15 : ' Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of 
commandments contained in ordinances.' 

" Here, too, we have the law of ordinances, the enmity, abol- 
ished. ' That was against us, which was contrary to us.' The 
ceremonial law, with all its rites and ordinances, which must 
be carefully regarded in the smallest affairs of every-day life, 
was indeed a burden, a yoke, and against them, imposed upon 
them to keep them a separate people till Christ came. But 
which one of the ten commandments is against us ? Let us 
examine them. Is it against us, 1. To have no other gods ? 
2. Not to make or worship an image ? 3. Not to swear? 5. 
To honor our parents 1 6. Not to kill ? 7. Nor commit adul- 
tery? 8. Nor steal? 9. Nor lie? 10. Nor covet? Are 
not these commandments good, and for our best interest? 
But perhaps the fourth precept, the Sabbath, is against us. 
No, indeed; for Christ himself said, 'The Sabbath was made 
for man.' Mark 2: 27. That which is for man cannot be 
against him. Indeed, is not the Sabbath one of the greatest 
blessings ever given to our race ? What would the world do 
without it ? 

"' Nailing it to his cross.'' It would be proper to speak of 
nailing to the cross a parchment, or laws written on paper, 


but entiiely improper if the reference is to the tables of stone. 
They could not be nailed up. Notice now the items which 
the apostle mentions, not one of which is in the decalogue, 
but all of which are in the ceremonial law. 'Let no man 
judge you in meat: Anything in the ten commandments 
about meat?— Not a word. 'Or in drink.' Anvthing there 
about drink ?— Nothing. ' Or in respect of an holy day: The 
original word here rendered 'holy day' is heortees, which means 
a feast day. Thus Greenfield defines it: 'A solemn feast, 
public festival, holy day.' It occurs twenty-seven times in the 
New Testament, and is, except in this place, every time 
rendered feast or feast day. ... 

'"Or of the new moon.' Anything about new moons in the 
ten commandments ?— Not a thing. Hence this can have no 
reference to that law. Was there a law touching the celebration 
of new moons ?— Yes; the ceremonial law. (See Num. 10 : 10 ; 
28 : 11 ; Ps. 81 : 3, 4.) Thus far we have not found the slight' 
est reference to the ten commandments, but every item men- 
tioned is found in the ceremonial law, outside of the decalogue. 

" ' Or of the sabbath days. 1 Here our opponents are in high 
glee, thinking that the seventh-day Sabbath is surely meant by 
this; but we are as confident that it is not, and will give our 
reasons for it. Many of the ablest commentators agree with 
• us in this. Dr. Clarke says of this expression: 'The apostle 
speaks here in reference to some particulars of the handwriting 
of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction 
of meats and drinks, what was clean and what undean, accord- 
ing to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holidays 
or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths 
. . . There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done 
away, or that its moral use was superseded by the introduction 
of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that Remember the 
Aa66a*A day to keep it holy is a command of perpetual obliga- 

"The American Tract Society comments thus on this pas- 
sage: 'A holy day-sabbath days; in the original, a festival 
—sabbaths. The days referred to are those required to be 
observed in meats, drinks, and new moons. The passage does 
not refer to the Sabbath of the moral law associated with tlie 
commands forbidding murder, theft, and adultery.' 

" The following are some of the reasons why this does not 
apply to the weekly Sabbath:— 

" 1. If it does, then it leaves us no weekly Sabbath day at 
all ; for no exception Is made. It sets aside the first-day Sab- 
bath as well as the seventh-day. Let no man judge you in 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 50 — 


respect to the sabbath days. If one man is not to be judged 
for disregarding one day, thon another is not to be jndged for 
disregarding another day, and so we need keep no day. But 
who believes such a doctrine? 

u 2. This interpretation contradicts the many plain and direct 
texts which assert that the law which includes the Sabbath is 
still in force and must be kept, even to the smallest point 
Rom. 3:31; Matt. 5: 17-19; James 2 : 8-12. 

" 3. If this proves the Sabbath nailed to the cross, then the 
other commandments went with it, and so the law against 
murder, adultery, theft, etc., has been abolished. 

" 4. Not a single expression in the whole passage, unless it be 
this one touching the Sabbath days, is applicable to the law of 
God engraven in stones, as we have seen. 

44 5. Every item in the context enumerated by the apostle, viz., 
meats, drinks, festivals, and new moons, is found, not in the 
decalogue, but in the ceremonial law. This is a strong indica- 
tion that he is talking simply of the Institutions of that cere- 
monial law, and has no reference to the moral law. 

44 6. But were there any sabbath days in the ceremonial law 1 
— Yes, several yearly sabbaths distinct from the Lord's Sab- 
bath, which was the only weekly Sabbath. They are described 
at length in Lev. 23. . . , 

"7. Paul is very careful to designate which sabbath days 
were done away. He says, 4 The sabbath days which are a shadow 
of things to come. 1 Verse 17. This was true of the ceremonial 
sabbaths, but not of the seventh-day Sabbath. It pointed back 
to creation, not forward to the cross ; hence it is not what the 
apostle meant. ... So our opponents have not even a single 
hook upon which to hang their theory in this passage, but we 
have strong proof here of our position on the two laws." 

Eld. Canrlght on Acts 15. 


44 Now study the great coun- 
cil at Jerusalem, held over 
twenty years after the resur- 
rection. " Acts 15. Not only 
did the whole church in Judea 
keep the entire Mosaic law in 
all its rites, including circum- 
cision, but they endeavored also 
to force it upon the Gentile 


44 * And certain men which 
came down from Judea taught 
the brethren, and said, Except 
ye be circumcised after the 
manner of Moses, ye cannot 
be saved. When therefore Paul 
and Barnabas had no small 
dissension and disputation with 
them, they determined that 

— 51 - 


converts. Verses 1,19. But 
through the influence of Paul 
this move was defeated. If it 
had not been that in the prov- 
idence of God Paul was raised 
up to oppose it, the whole 
Christian church would have 
been placed under the bondage 
of the Mosaic law. As it was, 
that council freed only the Gen- 
tile converts from obedience 
to Moses' law. Acts 15: 19, 
23; 21: 25. All Jewish Chris- 
tians still kept it." 

"It is Paul who furnishes 
us the strong statements 
against the keeping of the Mo- 
saic law, Sabbath and holy days. 
Let Sabbatarians meditate upon 
this point a little. The hottest 
battle which the great apostle 
to the Gentiles had to fight all 
his life was right upon the 
question of the observance of 
that law and these things; 
and his bitterest opponents 
were his own Christian breth- 
ren who were Jews. (Acts 
15:1, 2; GaL 2:1-14.) To 
conciliate these as far as 
possible, according to his own 
rule, 4 unto the Jews I became 
a Jew, that I might gain the 
Jews' (1 Cor. 9: 20); he him- 
self, as a Jew, not as a Chris- 
tian, submitted to keep all the 
Jewish law, as we have seen." 
— Mich. Christian Advocate of 
Sept. 24, 1887. 

Paul and Barnabas and certain 
other of them should go up to 
Jerusalem unto the apostles 
and elders about this question.' 
Verses 1, 2. It is plainly stated 
what the question was, viz., 
circumcision. Notice that Paul 
and Barnabas go up to this 
council on purpose to have 
this question settled. . . 
Luke continues: 4 But there 
rose up certain of the sect of 
the Pharisees which believed, 
saying, that it was needful to 
circumcise them and to com- 
mand them to keep the law of 
Moses.' Verse 5. Is this the dec- 
alogue?— No, indeed; it is ex- 
pressly said to be the law of 
Moses relating to circumcision. 

" A great council of all the 
apostles and leading brethren 
was called at Jerusalem to con- 
sider this question. Verses 
1-6. After much discussion 
Peter arose and said: 'Why 
tempt ye God to put a yoke 
upon the neck of the disciples, 
which neither our fathers nor 
we were able to bear? ' Verse 
10. The ceremonial law, with 
its rites, its washings, its dis- 
tinctions of clean and unclean, 
and its sacrifices was indeed a 
difficult law to observe. It 
might well be termed * a yoke.' " 
44 Are the ten command- 
ments a yoke grievous to be 
borne ? Look at them. 1. 
Have no gods but the Lord. 
Is this a yoke of bondage? 

. . . , Who dare affirm it ? 2. ~Do 

ssir n^ p th n lmag !-,J Ma the disc,pies flnd » e^™ 8 to °tey 

this Did they want liberty to disobey it? 3. Do not profane 
God's name. Was this a yoke hard to bear? Omit the fourth 
5. Honor your parents. Is this the galling yoke? 6. DonotkilL 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 52 — 


7. Nor commit adultery. 8. Nor steal. 9. Nor lie. 10. Nor 
covet Where do we find a hard yoke in any of these, which 
ought to be thrown off] It is not there. Then it must be the 
Sabbath, if in the decalogue at all. But is it a hard thing to 
rest upon God's sacred day, to give him one day out of seven! 
But that was not the subject about which they were troubled. 
It was circumcision, concerning which there was not one word 
in the whole decalogue. 

"After thoroughly discussing this question, the apostles 
wrote to the Gentiles thus: 'Forasmuch as we have heard that 
certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, 
subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and 
keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment. 

It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay 
upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 
that ve abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood 
and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which 
if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well.' Acts 15: 24-29. 

" ■ There,' says one, * the apostles have enumerated and brought 
over into the gospel all of the old law that it was necessary to 
keep- but they do not mention the Sabbath: therefore it is 
not binding.' Prof ound conclusion 1 Look again. They do not 
say a word about swearing, lying, stealing, murdering, or cov- 
eting Therefore the commandments which forbid these sins 
are not to be obeyed any longer 1 Indeed, not one of the ten 
commandments is mentioned at all. Every item enumerated 
is found in either the ceremonial or the civil law. The meats of- 
fered to idols were food set before an idol, and then removed to 
be eaten by men. Blood, and things strangled, were forbidden 
bv the Levitical law. Lev. 17: 13-16. Fornication was, no 
doubt one of the minor branches embraced in the seventh com- 
mandment; but there was a civil law directly mentioning and 
prohibiting it. Lev. 19:29; Deut 23 : 17. Observe that 
this was not done away, but retained because it had a bearing 
upon the moral law. 

"Notice this important fact : The great question before the 
anostles was whether or not a certain law was still to be kept 
bVChristians. Acts 15 : 5-24. They decide that it is not, with 
the exception of four points, which they enumerate. So much 
of that law as they here specify should still be observed. All 
the rest Is to be disregarded. If, therefore, the ten command- 
ments and the moral precepts of the Old Testament are ncluded 
in the law here under discussion, then Christians can lie, steal, 
covet etc. Yea, and the commands to love God and your 
neighbor are also abolished, with all the moral precepts of the 
Old Testament I 

-53 — 


«• This conclusion cannot be evaded ; for the apostles distinctly 
say that excepting the four items mentioned, no part of the law 
under consideration is to be observed by Christians. If, there- 
fore, there was only one law in the Old Testament, covering all 
its precepts, then the great commandment to love God with all 
your heart (Deut. 6:5), and the second, to love your neighbor 
as yourself (Lev. 19: 18), are abolished. What a blasphemous 
conclusion 1 What do our opponents do with this dilemma? 
What do they say about it? — Just nothing at all. They are 
speechless. Yet they will doggedly cling to their position and 
bring it up again and again, with all these absurdities staring 
them in the face." — Canright in Two Laws, pp. 28-32. 

Is the Fourth Commandment Positive or Moral? 
Does It Require a Definite Day? 


" Let us consider the nature 
of the Sabbath commandment. 
That this precept is partly of a 
moral and partly of a ceremo- 
nial nature has generally been 
held by the best theologians. 
This position is well founded. 
It is a well-proved fact that 
man's nature, physical, mental, 
social, and spiritual, requires a 
day of rest and worship about 
as often as one day in seven. 
Probably this principle is ap- 
plicable to all intelligent beings, 
whether men or angels or in- 
habitants of other worlds. So 
far the precept may be called 
moral. But when you come to 
the particular day or time for 
this rest, that must vary with 
circumstances, and may be one 
day as well as another, If God 
so direct." 

44 But stubborn facts nearer 
home show that God's children 
do not and cannot all 4 observe 
the same period together.' 
Everybody knows that it is 


"But it is further objected 
that the Sabbath institution Is 
partly moral and partly cere- 
monial. It is moral so far as 
H relates to giving a certain 
day to God. Thus far there 
is a universal agreement of all 
nations. But it is ceremonial 
so f ar as it defines just what 
particular day or portion of 
time shall be kept holy. This, 
it is claimed, is proved by the 
fact that, by the light of nat- 
ure alone, no man could pos- 
sibly determine which day of 
the seven was the true Sab- 
bath. It is asked, What is 
there in nature to distinguish 
the seventh day from the other 
days of the week? — Nothing. 
Hence it is not so important 
which day we keep, provided 
that we keep one day in seven. 
But the same reasoning would 
prove that the first command- 
ment was also partly moral and 
partly ceremonial. That men 
should worship some god is 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

-54 — 

— 56 — 


3aturday in India some twelve 
hours sooner than it is here, 
and that it is Saturday here 
twelve hours after it has ceased 
to be Saturday there. In Aus- 
tralia the day begins eighteen 
hours sooner than it does in 
California. So the seventh-day 
brethren in California are work- 
ing nearly the whole time that 
their brethren in Australia are 
keeping Sabbath. 

"Come even nearer home 
than that. The sun sets about 
three hours later in California 
than it does in Maine. So, 
when the Seventh-day Advent- 
ists in Maine begin to keep the 
Sabbath at sunset Friday even- 
ing, their own brethren in 
California, where the sun is 
yet three hours high, will still 
be at work for three hours. 
So, very few of them even on 
this earth 1 observe the same 
period together.' While some 
of them are keeping Sabbath 
on one part of the earth, oth- 
ers of them are at work on an- 
other part of the earth." 

11 1 have to confess that for 
many years I was so stupid as 
to suppose that the Lord him- 
self kept the Sabbath at the 
same time I did here. I sup- 
posed that when the sun 
set Friday evening and I be- 
gan keeping the Sabbath, the 
Lord and the angels began 
keeping it too. But now I see 
how utterly impossible that is; 
for if the Lord keeps the Sab- 
bath at the same time I do 
here, then he does not keep it 
with the brethren on the oppo- 
site side of the globe; because 


readily discerned by nature 
itself, and in this all have ever 
agreed. But just who is the 
true God, none can decide 
without a revelation. On this 
point there has been the great- 
est diversity. Some have 
chosen one as the true God, 
and some another, till there 
are millions of different gods 
worshiped by men. This 
proves that it is immaterial 
which god you worship, pro- 
vided you worship some one 
god I Who dare admit such 
a conclusion? Yet it is founded 
upon exactly the same mode of 
reasoning that is followed in 
arguing against a definite Sab- 
bath day." — Morality of the 
Sabbath, pp. 69, 70. 

"When God made this 
round earth, he also made man 
to dwell on all the face of it 
(Gen. 1 : 28; Acts 17 : 26), and 
at the same time he made the 
Sabbath for man. Gen. 2: 
1-3 ; Mark 2 : 27. God would 
not require an impossibility, 
hence all men can keep it. So 
we find that they do keep it 
without any such difficulty as 
this objection supposes. The 
Jews, who are scattered in 
every part of the earth and all 
around it, keep the seventh-day 
Sabbath. Starting from Pales- 
tine, some have come around 
the world via Europe and the 
Atlantic Ocean. Others have 
come via Asia, China, and the 
Pacific Ocean. Both have met 
in America keeping the same 
day. There is no disagreement 
among them in any part of the 
world. This demonstrates that 


they begin the Sabbath at least 
twelve hours earlier than we 
do here. In fact, it takes 
just forty-eight hours, or the 
time of two whole days, from 
the time any one day first 
begins in the extreme east 
till it ends at the farthest 
place in the west Will the 
reader stop and think eare- 
fully, sharply, on this point? 
for it is an important one. 
It takes twenty-four hours for 
the first end of a day to go 
clear around the earth. Then 
as the last end of the day is 
twenty-four hours behind the 
first end, it must also have 
twenty-four hours more to go 
clear around the earth, and 
that makes forty-eight hours 
in all that each day is on the 
earth somewhere." 

u In reply to all these facts, 
which cannot be denied, sev- 
enth-day people say: Is not 
the first day of the week, or 
Sunday, just as definite a day 
as the seventh day, or Satur- 
day? Is it not just as difficult 
to keep Sunday all around the 
world as it is to keep Satur- 
day? Do you not claim that 
you should keep the first day in 
honor of the resurrection? and 
will it do, then, to keep some 
other day? The answer to 
these questions is not hard to 
give. The essential idea is 
that we should devote one day 
in seven to religious duties. 
To secure the highest good, all 
should unite in observing the 
same day." 

" But it is not claimed that 
it is absolutely essential that 


men can travel all around this 
earth and still keep the same 

"Those who keep Sunday 
live in all parts of the earth, 
and have traveled all around 
it both ways. Do they find 
any difficulty in keeping the 
first day ? — Not in the least. 
This objection is all imaginary; 
for, practically, no one ever 
had any such trouble. Seventh- 
day Adventists and Seventh- 
day Baptists are scattered near- 
ly around the globe ; and yet 
they find no difficulty in keep- 
ing the seventh-day Sabbath. 

"The facts are these: The 
day begins at sunset. Gen. 
1:5; Lev. 23: 32; Mark 1: 32. 
When the sun sets Friday even- 
ing in Asia, then the seventh- 
day Sabbath begins there. A 
few hours later the sun sets in 
Europe; then the Sabbath has 
come there. Still later it sets 
in New York; and now the 
Sabbath has come there. 
Three hours later the sun sets 
in California; and now the 
seventh day has arrived here. 
When the seventh day is in 
Asia, then those living there 
can observe it; when it comes 
to Europe, then those there 
can keep it; and when it gets 
round here to America, then 
we can keep it. It is exactly 
the same day when it comes 
to America that it was when 
it started in Asia, though it 
comes here later. A train of 
cars starts from Chicago at 
seven o'clock Monday morning, 
and arrives at Omaha, five hun- 
dred miles west of that city, the 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 56 — 

— 57 — 


exactly the same minutes and 
hours, or even the same defi- 
nite day, must be kept any- 
way and under all circum- 
stances, whether or no. That 
would be legalism, and con- 
trary to the very nature and 
freedom of the gospel." — Can- 
right in Mich. Christian Advo- 
cate of Sept. 10, 1887. 


next morning at the same hour. 
Is it not the same train that 
started from Chicago twenty- 
four hours before? — Certainly. 
Suppose that this is train No. 
7. A business man in Chicago 
has several hired men scat- 
tered all along the road be- 
tween Chicago and Omaha. 
He orders them all to take 
train No. 7, which leaves Chi- 
cago at seven Monday morning, 
and meet him at Omaha. Would all these men go down to 
their different depots at seven Monday morning to take train 
No. 7? They would not find it there if they did. But each 
one waits till the train arrives at his place, and then gets aboard, 
and the last one would get on about twenty-four hours later 
than the first one. But would it not be the same train No. 7 
that started in Chicago? — Of course it would. 

44 The Lord commands his servants all around the world to 
keep the seventh day. Each one is to keep it when it comes 
where he is, not when it comes where some one else is. When 
it comes to those in Asia, they can keep it. Several hours later 
it comes to England, and then they keep it; and so on around 
the world. This is sufficient to show that there is no such dif- 
ficulty as this objection supposes." — Id. pp. 84-87. 

"Another says, We agree that one-seventh part of time 
should be set aside as sacred to God ; but it makes no difference 
which day it is, provided all are united upon It, which is the 
Important idea. Here, again, they unwittingly admit all that 
we claim. They admit that it is a moral duty of man to devote 
one day in seven to the service of God. Thus they give it a moral 
basis — just that for which we are contending! Again, they 
strongly urge the great importance of all uniting to keep the 
same day. They dwell upon the inconvenience to society, where 
one keeps one day and another some other day, and so on; how 
this interferes with business ; how each one annoys the other ; how 
it breaks up society, etc. Thus they readily name a long list of 
evils which follow where men keep different days for the Sabbath. 

M Do they not see that these very facts overthrow their own 
position? They maintain that it is no matter which day ycii 
keep, provided you keep one day in seven, and that every man 
has the liberty to choose for himself. Then they turn square 
about and show how very important it is that all keep the same 
day ! Why, then, do they advocate the very principle which, if 
carried out, would produce the very division, discord, and con- 


fusion which they deprecate so much? Did not the Lord have 
as much wisdom as man? Did he not know that it was impor- 
tant that all should keep the same day? Did he not see that, 
if he left it to every man to choose what day he would keep, 
confusion would inevitably follow, as all men would not be 
likely to choose the same day ? Is God so unwise as to leave 
his laws in this slack manner ? Is this not charging God with 
folly ? What is gained to God or man by leaving every man 
thus to choose what day he will keep ? The only way that union 
could be secured in observing the Sabbath, would be for the 
Lord himself to designate the definite day which all must keep; 
then all would keep the same day, and all confusion would be 
avoided. We say, then, that reason and the nature of things 
teach us that if God should give man a Sabbath at all, it should 
be a definite day, selected and appointed by God himself. That 
this is just what God has done in the Sabbath precept, we will 
now show."— Id. pp. 31, 32. 

Eld. Canright on Both Sides of the Sabbath and Sunday 
in the New Testament. 


u A great and radical change 
in the mode of worshiping God 
is now Introduced. The new 
wine of the gospel must not be 
put into the old bottles of the 
Jewish law, nor the new cove- 
nant patched on to the old. 
(Mark 2 : 21, 22.) Hence, 
'there is made of necessity a 
change also of the law 1 (llub. 7 : 
12), which was only a f school- 
master to bring us unto Christ' 
(Gal. 3 : 24), who 4 is the end of 
the law' (Rom. 10:4). Now 
we are to hear Jesus (Matt 
7 : 24), and keep his command- 
ments (John 14:15,21); for 
we 4 aiv not under the law' 
(Rom. 0: 14)." 

"Sabbatarians think they 
have a fair argument in the 
Acts. Here the seventh day is 
always called 4 the Sabbath,' 


44 In stronger language the 
Saviour continues : 4 For verily 
I say unto you, Till heaven 
and earth pass, one jot or one 
tittle shall in no wise pass from 
the law till all be fulfilled.' 
Matt. 5:18. How could lan- 
guage be stronger? Heaven 
and earth have not passed yet. 
But till they do, not one jot or 
tittle shall pass from the law, — 
not one. Every precept shall 
stand. Not even a letter, or 
the corner of a letter, shall be 
changed till heaven and earth 
shall pass away, yea, longer, 
till all (all things) are fulfilled. 
Christ is speaking of the law 
and the prophets, and he says 
till these are all fulfilled, the 
whole law shall stand. But 
all the prophets will not be 
fulfilled, even when heaven and 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 58 — 


and it is evident that the Jew- 
ish Christians still observed it, 
and met with the Jews in wor- 
ship on that day. From this it 
1b concluded that all Christians 
should keep that day too. 
This is based on the false 
assumption that whatever cus- 
toms and laws of the old 
covenant were still observed 
by the Christians after the 
resurrection, must be binding 
upon the church now." 

"There Is not one single 
command from either Christ 
or any of his apostles to keep 
that day. It is not once said 
that it is wrong to work on the 
seventh day, or that God will 
bless any one for observing it. 
There is no promise for keep- 
ing it, no threatening for not 
keeping it. No one is ever 
reproved for working on the 
seventh day, nor approved for 
observing it. If disregarding 
the seventh day is so great a 
crime as its advocates now 
claim, it is unaccountable that 
no warning against it should 
be given in all the New Testa- 
ment — not even once." 

M Every mention of the Sab- 
bath in Acts, without a single 
exception, is in connection 
with the Jewish worship on 
that day. (Acts 13:14, 15, 
42, 45; 15:21; 16:13; 17: 
12; 18:4.) The law and the 
prophets were read, and Jewish 
worship conducted as usual. 
Certainly the disciples could 
not hold a distinctively Chris- 
tian meeting here under these 
circumstances. They must as- 
semble by themselves to wor- 


earth pass away. No, not till 
the eternal kingdom is 
reached. Thus in the strong- 
est language Jesus teaches 
that every precept in the law 
will be in force until we shall 
reach the eternal world. He 
confirms this position with the 
following solemn words : 
'Whosoever therefore shall 
break one of these least com- 
mandments, and shall teach 
men so, he shall be called the 
least in the kingdom of 
heaven.' Verse 19. How 
sacred was every one of these 
commandments in the eyes of 
the divine Son of God! Not 
the least one of them can be 
disregarded. Reader, if you 
are breaking one of these com- 
mandments and teaching oth- 
ers to do the same, how will 
you meet these words of the 
Master in the Judgment? — 
Law of God, pp. 8, 4. 
Romans 10 : 4. 

"1. The law is ended only to 

" 2. Then is it binding on 
sinners ? 

M 3. If a saint backslides, is 
it re-enacted to hlra ? 

u 4. End here means object, 
as in 1 Tim. 1:5; James 5 : 11. 

" 5. 1 For Messiah is the aim 
of the law for righteousness.' 
— Murdoch- 8 Syriac." 
Romans 6 : H. 

"1. Subject, conversion, not 
change of dispensation. See 
verses 1-13. 

"2. Are worldlings 'dead 
to sin'? verse 2; baptized? 
verse 3 ; dead with Christ ? 

— 59 — 


ship Jesus and have the Lord's 
supper, and that is just what 
we find them doing on the first 
day of the week. Acts 20 : 7." 

"The early Christians for 
several hundred years contin- 
ued to call the Jewish day ' the 
Sabbath,' generally repudiat- 
ing it as abolished, and always 
claiming Sunday as the day of 
Christian worship — the Lord's 
day. (See Rev. 1 : 10 and any 
Church history.) After the 
Jewish day had long been 
dropped out of notice, the 
word 'Sabbath' came to be 
used for the Christian rest day. 
It would have been better if 
the inspired term 'Lord's day' 
had been always retained and 
exclusively used." 

"How much, then, does it 
prove in favor of the Jewish 
Sabbath to find that it was still 
called ' the Sabbath,' or that it 
was kept by the Jewish Cbiis- 
tians, or even by Paul himself? 
—Just nothing at all."— Mich. 
Christian Advocate of Sept. 17 
and 24, 1887. 


verse 8 ; alive from the deadt 
verse 13. — No. 

"3. Sin does rule over sin- 
ners. Verse 14 ; John 8 : 34. 

"4. Are sinners under grace? 
— No. Verse 14. 

" 5. All this applies only to 
baptized saints. Verse 4. 

" 6. ' Under law ' means here 
condemned by it Rom. 3: 9, 
19. Under: '2. Under the 
pains and penalties of the 
law.' — Webster. 

" 7. There are two classes, 
those under grace and those 
under the law. Verse 14. 

"8. Shall we sin? — No. 
Verse 15. What is sin? 
1 John 3:4. 

"9. Then we must not 
transgress the law, though we 
are not under it. This shows 
that it is binding, and must be 
kept by Christians. "-CanrigMs 
Critical Notes on Bom. 6 : 14 and 

" Sunday-keepers assert that 
the first day of the week is tne 
Christian Sabbath, or the SaD- 
bath of the New Testament. 
Seventh-day Adventists main- 
tain that the seventh day is the 
. . . Sabbath of the New Testament 
<io Into a cnnrch on the first day of the week, and you hear 
tiie minister call It the Sabbath day. Go among the seventh- 
day people on Saturday, and they call that the Sabbath. 
Now, who is right? We appeal to the New Testament. 

"In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward 
toe first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene,' etc Matt 
28: 1. Notice particularly ; here are two days. One Is the 
Sabbath day. 'In the end of the Sabbath: Very well, there 
Is one day, then, that is the Sabbath. Now which day is 
this ? Sunday-keepers say it is the first day of the week, 
and we say that it is the seventh day. Read further. 'In 
the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first 
day of the week: Reader, which is the Sabbath day 1 It can- 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

60 — 

— 61 — 


not be the first day, because the one which la called the 
Sabbath is the day before the first day. The Sabbath is ended 
before the first day comes. Remember, this is not the testimony 
of the Old Testament. It is from the Gospel that we are 
reading, the Christian Scriptures, the New Testament. 

" Here is another text: 'When the Sabbath was past . . . 
very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they 
came unto the sepulcher.' Mark 16 : 1, 2. Notice carefully ; 
here are two days spoken of again. One of them is the Sab- 
bath. Which day is it? Is it the first day?— Surely not, be- 
cause the Sabbath is past before the first day comes. 1 When 
the Sabbath was past ... the first day of the week they 
came unto the sepulcher.' Remember this is New Testament, 
not Old, — gospel, not law, — Christian, not Jewish, testimony. 
To this we appeal. This was written a long time after the 
resurrection — written by a Christian, and for Christians. 

"Once more: 'And they returned, and prepared spices 
and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day, according to the 
commandment.' Luke 23: 56. Thus did the holy women who 
had followed Christ and were acquainted with all his teaching. 
This was written thirty years after the resurrection. It is 
in the Christian Scriptures. What does it say ?— They kept the 
Sabbath day. What Sabbath day?— 'The Sabbath day ac- 
cording to the commandment' Then It is the right Sabbath, 
the one the law requires. Now what day was this? The next 
verse will settle it: 'Now upon the first day of the week, very 
early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher.' Notice, 
the next day after the day they had kept, was the first day of 
the week. Thus, reader, the first day of the week cannot be 
the Sabbath day according to the commandment, because the 
Christians had kept the Sabbath day the day before the first 
day of the week. Do not think we are reading from the Old 
Testament. This is New Testament Scripture. 

" We turn to Acts, which was written some thirty- three years 
this side the commencement of the gospel age, and written by a 
Christian. It shows us the language of the apostolic Christians 
touching the ancient Sabbath, and how they used it. We rind 
them always calling it ' the Sabbath,' just as it had beeu called 
in the old dispensation, and using it for religious worship as of 
old. Of Paul and Barnabas it says: 'They came to Antioch iu 
Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, ana 
sat down.' Chap. 13: 14. This was the seventh day, the day 
on which the Jews worshiped. Inspiration here calls it the 
Sabbath day, not a Sabbath day, nor the old Sabbath day, nor 
the Jewish Sabbath day, nor the day that used to be the Sab- 
bath, but ' the Sabbath day.' Was it the Sabbath day ? Sunday- 
keepers say, No. The Lord says, Yes. 


"Paul, in his sermon referring to that day says that the 
prophets ' are read every Sabbath day.' Verse 27. Here the 
apostle calls it definitely 'the Sabbath day.' When he had 
finished his discourse, ' the Gentiles besought that these words 
might be preached to them the next Sabbath.' Verse 42. Here, 
even the Gentiles called it the Sabbath. Once more : ' And the 
next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together.' Verse 
44. Luke, the historian, here calls it the Sabbath, and records 
the meetings they held upon it. James, in Acts 15 : 21, says the 
Scriptures are 'read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.' 
Thus, James still designates thai as the Sabbath day. 

M Once more: ' And on the Sabbath we went out of the city 
by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made.' Acts 16: 
13. On what day?— Ine Sabbath. Who will contradict the 
Scriptures, and say that it was not the Sabbath? Every one 
holds that the day here referred to was the seventh day; and 
this record is in the New Testament 

M Again : ' Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and 
three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.' 
Acts 17 : 2. It was Paul's custom to observe the Sabbath, as we 
here see. On wnat days d*d he preach there? On the Sabbath 
days. But thi6 was on the seventh day, not on the first 
Which, then, is the Sabbath-day, according to Paul? In Acts 
18:1-11, we find the following facts: Paul went to Corinth, 
searched the city over, and found Aquiia, a Jew, with whom he 
went into company in the business of tent-making. ' And he 
reasoned in the syuagogue every Sabbath.' Verse 4. 4 And he 
continued there a year and six months.' Verae 11. Thus we 
find Paul working at his trade and preaching in the synagogue 
every Sabbath for a vear and a halt Here is a record of seventy- 
eight Sabbaths observed by the apostle. Not a word is said 
about keeping 8unday. Thus we find that the seventh day is 
always and invariably termed 'fte Sabbath' in the New Tes- 
tament, while ttie first day is never so called. 

"Again: 'I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.' Rev. 
1 : 10. There is, then, in the gospel, a day which belongs to 
the Lord. That this is the seventh day is expressly taught 
all through tbe Bible. Six days God gave to men, but the 
seventh day he reserved for his own worship. Hence he says, 
'The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord' (Ex. 20:10), 
and he calls it 'My holy day.' Isa. 58 : 13. And Jesus says 
that he is ' Lord of the Sabbath.' Mark 2 : 28. Then the 
seventh day is the Lord's day. Those who assume that the 
first day is tne Lord's day, contradict the Bible, and make it 
up out of their own hearts. 

-lkrt; we think we have plainly found the Sabbath day 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 62 — 

— 63- 


which the Christian Scriptures plainly teach. It is the seventh 
day of the week. We ask, then, By what authority do you 
apply the term 4 Sabbath* to the first day of the week? 
God has never changed it, and why should you ? 

"In conclusion, we ask, Where did the Lord ever give 
you permission to work on his holy day ? Who gave you lib- 
erty lo use it for secular work ? When was the blessing or sanc- 
tiflcation removed f r o m it ? We pray you to consider these 
things in the light of the Judgment. 

"When predicting the overthrow of Jerusalem, which oc- 
curred thirty-nine years after his resurrection, he said to his 
disciples, 'But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, 
neither on the Sabbath day.' Matt. 24 : 20. Here he points 
them forward thirty-nine years into the gospel age. tells 
them that they will have to flee for their lives, but commands 
them to pray the Lord that they may not be compelled to 
flee either in the winter or on the Sabbath day. If they should 
go in the winter, they might perish. But why not flee upon 
the Sabbath day 1 If it was not a sacred day, they could flee 
on that day as well as on any other. This text, then, plainly 
shows that not only was the Sabbath to exist so many years 
aftes the resurrection of Christ, but that it was still to be re- 
garded as a holy day. If not, there would be no reason In 
this command. Here, (hen, we find a New Testament command- 
ment from the lips of Jems himsdf for the observance of the 
seventh-day Sabbath. 

"Next, Acts 20:7-11 is supposed to furnish some little 
proof for firstrday observance. * And upon the first day of the 
week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul 
preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow ; and con- 
tinued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights 
in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.' 
Then a young man fell from a window, and being taken up 
dead, was restored to life by PauL And when he 4 had broken 
oread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of 
day, so he departed.' We notice these facts: 1. The first 
day is not called the Sabbath, Lord's day, or by any other 
sacred title. 2. This is the only religious meeting upon the 
first day of the week of which we have any record in the 
New Testament. This is remarkable, if that were the common 
day of meeting. But we have a record of eighty-four Sabbaths 
which Paul kept, and on which he preached. See Acts 13 : 
14,44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:1-4, 11. 3. Nothing Is said 
about Its being their custom to meet on that day. 4. There is 
no record that they ever met on that day before this occasion 
or afterward. 5. But what settleB the whole matter is the 


simple fact that it was only an evening meeting. When they 
assembled, Paul began to preach to them, and 'continued 
his speech until midnight.' After breaking bread, he again 
talked 'till break of day,' and then went on his journey. 
Evening meetings are frequently held on all days of the week. 
No one thinks of calling a day holy for this reason. So in the 
above case; this meeting does not furnish the slightest evidence 
that Sunday was a holy day. Moreover, this was not an 
ordinary meeting, but a very uncommon one. It was Paul's 
farewell meeting (verse 25) ; hence it lasted all night. A dead 
man was raised. It was for these reasons that It was men- 
tioned, and not because of any sacredness belonging to the 
day. Then there is not a particle of evidence here for Sun- 
day observance." — Oanright in the tract, The Christian Sabbath. 

We give, also, a few extracts from 44 One Hundred Bible 

44 7. The Sabbath was made before the fall; hence it Is not 
a type, for types were not introduced till after the fall. 

44 8. Jesus says it was made for man (Mark 2 : 27) ; that 
is, for the race, as the word man is here unlimited; hence, 
for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews." 

44 12. It is not a Jewish institution, for it was made 2,300 
years before ever there was a Jew. 

" 13. The Bible never calls it the Jewish Sabbath, but always 
4 the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ' Men should be careful how 
they stigmatize God's holy rest day." 

44 16. Then God placed it, not in the ceremonial law, but 
in the heart of his moral law. Ex. 20 : 1-17. Why did he 
place it there, if it is not like the other nine precepts, which 
all admit to be immutable 1 " 

44 27. God hns» pronounced a special blessing on all the Gen- 
tiles who wlU kerp it. Isa. 56 : 6, 7. 

44 28. This is in that prophecy which refers wholly to the 
Christian dispensation. See Isa. 56. 

44 29. God has promised to bless any man who will keep 
the Sabbath. Isa. 56 : 2. 

44 30. The Lord requires us to call it 4 howrable.' Isa. 58 : 13. 
Beware, ye who take delight in calling it the 4 old Jewish 
Sabbath,' 4 a yoke of bondage,' etc." 

44 39. He instructed his apostles that the Sabbath should be 
prayerfully regarded forty years after his resurrection. Matt. 
24 : 20." 

44 41. Thirty years after Christ's resurrection, the Holy Spirit 
expressly calls it 4 the Sabbath day.' Acts 13 : 14. 

44 42. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, called it 4 the Sabbath 
day ' in jl d. 45. Actsl3 : 27." 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 64 — 

— 65 — 


We have given quite a liberal amount of space to enable the 
Elder to show his agility in arguing both aides of these ques- 
tions. We have purposely retrained from making comments, 
so as not to confuse the reader's mind. In fact, we are per- 
fectly willing to leave the verdict with the reader, as to which 
is ahead in the argument, "Canright in the darkness" or 
" Canright in the light." We feel sure the greatest mystery 
the reader will have to solve is this: How could a man, after 
1 presenting such strong, valid arguments in years past, now turn 
and present such as he has been giving of late ? The answer 
is indicated in the headings. Canright is now in the darkness. 
He has stepped down from the solid rock of truth, founded 
upon the eternal obligation of the law of God, and now stands 
upon the shifting sands of the "law abolished," "Sunday- 
Lord's day," and the support of a pagan and papal institution. 
From our hearts we pity him. g. i. b. 


Eld. Canright makes special efforts to excite prejudice 
against S. D. Adventists because of their view concerning the 
" fall of Babylon." He does his best to make everybody be- 
lieve that we are uncharitable, exclusive, bigoted, and nar- 
row-minded, having no interest in anybody but ourselves, and 
no sympathy with the reform movements of the day. In or- 
der to make this impression as effective as possible, he mis- 
represents the position held by this people concerning Baby- 
lon and its fall. His statements convey the unmistakable 
impression that we have no confidence in the religion of mem- 
bers of other churches, but consider them all as rejected of 
God and lost, and ourselves as the only favored ones, whom 
God regards because we keep the seventh-day Sabbath and 
believe in Mrs. White's visions. We are, of course aware 
that in some instances he speaks of us personally as an hon- 
est and good people, who are trying to obey God and be con- 
scientious and true to our convictions ; yet, nevertheless, he 
ever keeps the impression uppermost that we are utterly illib- 
eral and exclusive, and that our peculiar faith makes us so. 

We consider these representations of us and our faith to be 
wicked slanders, and if Eld. C. has any memory left he must 
know them to be such. He has heard our representative men 
preach scores of times, and has taught the same thing himself, 
that we believe to-day that the great majority of true Qhrty- 

tians are in the Protestant churches. We have never taught 
in a single instance, as a denomination, that our little church 
comprehends all the Christians in the world; have never be- 
lieved such a thing for a moment, and he knows it. Why, 
then, does he so constantly convey such an impression as he 
does?— To lower us in the opinion of members of other 
churches, to make our work hard for us, and to utterly de- 
stroy our influence by exciting prejudice against us. If he 
can accomplish these objects, he will, of course, palliate his 
own apostasy and please those who hate us and our doctrine, 
to whom he has offered his services. If he can make our 
work appear mean and contemptible, and blacken our reputa- 
tion, he hopes this will make his course in leaving us and de- 
faming us appear necessary and honorable. As we are low- 
ered, he and his work are exalted. The candid reader will 
pardon an honest indignation at such attempts to bring con- 
tempt upon that to which some of us have consecrated our 
lives as the cause of God— a pure, holy, noble work. 

We will now briefly state to the reader what positions S. D. 
Adventists do hold concerning Babylon and the fall of Baby- 
lon; and we refer all such to our published works to be found 
in all our offices and depositories in confirmation of our state- 

In Rev. 14 : 8 we read, "And there followed another angel, 
saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because 
she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her 
fornication." Here is a prediction of Holy Writ which surely 
must be f ulfilled. It is contained in a striking prophecy which 
Adventists believe constitutes the last warning message to 
mankind, to prepare a people for the coming of Christ. (Read 
verses 6-16.) 

Three symbolic angels proclaim startling truths to man. 
These three angels symbolize important religious movements 
in the last days, having each special truths applicable to the 
time it is given. The first brings to view a mighty move in 
the last days, proclaiming the close of the prophetic periods, 
and bringing to view the commencement of the investigative 
Judgment, the closing work of Christ, our great High Priest, 
in the heavenly Temple above. The decision is made in the 
ease of every person before Christ comes. This judgment 
work occupies a space of time, a period which is of vast mo- 
ment to the race. It is every way fitting that the commence- 
ment of this solemn judgment period should be known to the 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 66 — 

— 67 — 

humble, earnest ones who are preparing for Christ's coming. 
It is announced by this first message. S. D. Adventists believe 
that the great advent proclamation of 1836 to 1844, which began 
with William Miller and reached to the ends of the earth, be- 
gan the fulfillment of this message. The second, as we have 
seen, announced the fall of Babylon. The third brings to view 
a people who keep the "commandments of God and the faith 
of Jesus," and contains a fearful threatening against the wor- 
ship of "the beast." This power is apostate in character, 
though professedly Christian (2 Thess. 2:8-8), persecuting 
the saints of God, and one which has thought to change the 
law of God. Dan. 7 : 25. It has ruled for ages. It is, in short, 
the papacy. In the last days its work is to be fully exposed, 
and all its corruptions of God's truth to be avoided by his true 
people, who shall be finally translated when Christ comes. 
This message takes time to develop and be fully consummated. 
But it must be one of vast importance to the human family. 
S. D. Adventists believe the light and truth contained in this 
message, they are now giving to the world. 

But we are now speaking of the second message proclaim- 
ing the fall of Babylon. Babylon is a symbol of great bodies 
professedly religious in character. Commentators generally 
agree in this. The meaning of the term Babylon is " confu- 
sion, mixture." The term is purely distinctive, embracing the 
great family of professedly Christian churches, commencing 
with that of Rome, and including all others which have truth 
and error mixed together, more or less, in their profession of 
faith. Chapter 17 brings to view in symbolic prophecy a 
woman sitting upon a scarlet-colored beast, gorgeously ar- 
rayed, and drunken with the blood of saints. This unmistakably 
refers to the Church of Rome, and it is here distinctly named 
Here, certainly, is a family, a mother and daughters. The 
latter must be those that came from the communion or body 
of the former, and must certainly embrace churches which 
are Protestant 

To prove that Adventists are not uncharitable in this view, 
nor take a different one from eminent writers of other de- 
nominations, we quote a few from the many testimonials we 
might present, as follows :— 
Lorenzo Dow says of the Romish Church :— 
" If she be the mother, who are the daughters ? It must be 

the corrupt, national, established churches that came out of 
her."— Dow' 8 Life, p. 54:3. 

Says the Religious Encyclopedia, art., Antichrist :- 
"If such persons are to be found in the mother of harlots 
with much less hesitation may it be inferred that they are 
connected with her unchaste daughters, those national churches 
which are founded upon what are called Protestant princi- 

The Tennessee Baptist says:— 

"This woman (popery) is called the mother of harlots and 
abominations. Who are the daughters ? The Lutheran, the 
Presbyterian, and the Episcopalian churches are all branches 
of the (Roman) Catholic." 

Dr. Guthrie, as quoted by the Watchman and Reflector, 
the leading organ of the Baptist denomination, says:- 

" Three hundred years ago, our church, with an open Bible 
on her banner, and this motto, Search the Scriptures, on her 
scroll, marched out from the gates of Rome," and then sig- 
nificantly adds, " Did they come clean out of Babylon ? " 

It will be seen that these, and we might quote many others 
take precisely the view we have indicated. There is no other 
tnat can be taken consistent with the evident meaning of the 
scripture. There is no other term but " confusion " and " mix- 
ture" that would properly describe the great sisterhood of 
churches, quarreling with one another, filled with pride and 
vainglory, and having many doctrines differing from one 
another. If their condition is not that of "confusion" and 
"mixture," what is it V Their condition is certainly much 
different from what Christ indicated when he prayed that his 
people might be one even as he and his Father were one. 

Adventists, then, believe that this great sisterhood of the 
churches has been for ages properly represented by the name 
Babylon. But they also believe that when the precious truths 
of the Reformation were proclaimed, when they came out from 
the Roman Church, God blessed their proclamation by a won- 
derful outpouring of his Spirit, and that the Protestant 
churches, when they were humble, though they did not have 
the whole truth in reference to his word, yet as they moved 
out in light and truth, God's blessing greatly rested upon them, 
and their existence has been a wonderful blessing to mankind. 
But they believe when the last days were reached, and the 
time came for the proclamation of the glorious truths of the 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

-68 — 

— 69 — 

second advent of onr Redeemer, If these bodies had listened 
to it with respect, it would have greatly benefited them. But 
instead of this, as bodies they turned against the advent doc- 
trine, and have been opposed to it ever since. They have taken 
a worldly position, leading them toward the pleasures of this 
sin-cursed earth, and are crying " Peace and safety," while 
God's word plainly teaches that the end of all things is at 

When they took this position, and turned against the 
truths of the Bible concerning the second advent of Christ, we 
believe that a change came over them, and God has not been 
with them since as before ; that there has been a great increase 
of corruption, pride, vanity, and wickedness coming into 
their midst; that they are developing more and more into the 
condition of a worldly church, instead of the church of our Lord 
Jesus Christ; and that their condition is now very much like 
that of the Jewish people when they turned against the truth 
concerning Christ's first advent. As a body the Lord was not 
with them as before, and gradually they developed more and 
more in the wrong direction until the judgments of God came 
upon them in the destruction of Jerusalem. But we all know 
that multitudes of pious, devoted Jews were to be found 
among that people for years after Christ was crucified; and 
that the duty of searching for these and bringing the gospel 
before them was ever prominent in the work of the apostle 
Paul and others. These were gradually brought to see the 
light of the gospel, and none of them were destroyed in the 
destruction of Jerusalem. 

So we believe in regard to the movement preparatory to 
Christ's second advent. While the tendency of the religious 
bodies of Protestants is away from God's truth toward world 
liness, pride, etc., there are multitudes of excellent, devoted, 
noble-hearted Christians among them who are living up to all 
the light they have, and are mourning over the sad state of the 
churches in the various communions of the Protestant world. 
If this view be uncharitable, we must be set down as such. 
We believe God has given special light to us as a people con- 
cerning Christ's second advent and the truths necessary to be 
obeyed to prepare one for it. If we did not believe this, we 
would dissolve as a people, and join the popular denomina- 
tions around us. But believing that as the Bible plainly 
teaches these truths, we must be true to our profession re- 
gardless of fear or favor. Eld. Canright would fain represent 

us as an uncharitable, bigoted set because we believe as we 
have stated. We utterly deny the charge, and propose to 
show that many eminent writers and religious teachers in the 
Protestant churches themselves admit all we claim. 
Howard Crosby says:— 

M The church of God is to-day courting the world. Its mem- 
bers are trying to bring it down to the level of the ungodly. 
The ball, the theater, nude and Jewd art, social luxuries, with 
all their loose moralities, are making inroads into the sacred 
inclosure of the church; and as a satisfaction for all this 
worldliness, Christians are making a great deal of Lent and 
Easter and church ornamentation. It is the old trick of Satan. 
The Jewish Church struck on that rock; the Romish Church 
was wrecked on the same; and the Protestant Church is fast 
reaching the same doom." 

Bishop Pierce, in the " New Book of Sermons," by twenty 
leading Southern Methodist ministers, four of them bishops, 
says :— 

11 The Bible makes a broad distinction between the ehurch 
and the world. . . . Yet the vain, wicked, corrupting exper- 
iment of harmonizing the two goes on, perhaps in no age of 
the church more broadly and with less disguise than now. . . . 
The process of amalgamation goes on almost without let or 

Says T. De Witt Talniage:- 

" I simply state a fact when I say that in many places the 
church is surrendering and the world is conquering. Where 
there is one man brought into the kingdom of God through 
Christian instrumentality, there are ten men dragged down by 
dissipations. . . . Look abroad, and see the surrender, even 
on the part of what pretend to be Christian churches, to Spir- 
itualism and humanitarianism, and all the forms of devilism. 
If a man stand in his pulpit and say that unless you be born 
again you will be lost, do not the tight kid gloves of the Chris- 
tians, diamonds bursting through, go up to their foreheads in 
humiliation and shame ? It is not elegant 

u There is a mighty host in the Christian church, positively 
professing Christianity, who do not believe the Bible, out and 
out, in and in, from the first word of the first verse of the first 
chapter of the book of Genesis, down to the last word of 
the last verse of the last chapter of the book of Revelation. 

. . . Eternal God! What will this come to? I tell you 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 70- 

— 71 — 

plainly, that while here and there a regiment of the Chris- 
tian soldiery is advancing, the church is falling back, for 
the most part, and falling back, and falling back; and if 
you do not come to complete rout, aye, to ghastly Bull 
Run defeat, it will be because some individual churches 
hurl themselves to the front, and ministers of Christ, tramp- 
ling on the favor of this world, and sacrificing everything, 
shall snatch up the torn and shattered banner of Emmanuel, 
and rush ahead, crying, On I on I this is no time to run; this 
Is the time to advance I " 
Says the Christian Union:— 

"Affiliation between the church and the theater is proceed- 
ing, we should think, as rapidly as the most ardent advocate 
of an alliance between them could reasonably desire." 

The North-Weetern Christian Advocate says:— 

" It is of the utmost importance that this tide of trifling, and 
amusement, and sin be stayed, or it will drown out the life of 
the Christian church." 

The Examiner and Chronicle says :— 

" When a man like Thomas Hood dares to say that as soon 
as he hears a man is pious, he begins to suspect him,— when he 
can say this, and not outrage the sense of the world by it, then 
we begin to ask what kind of Christians our age of the world 
lias to show. For the insolence of the Sadducees will always 
be fouud in near proportion to the indolence of the Christian. 
Many a church of Christ at the present time sits like Eli, with- 
out courage to rebuke sin in its own members, yet trembling 
for the ark of God." 

The report of the Michigan yearly conference, published in 
the True Wesleyan of Nov. 15, 1851, says:— 

" Sins that would shock the moral sensibility of the heathen 
go unrebuked in all the great denominations of our land. 
These churches are like the Jewish Church when the Saviour 
exclaimed, 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypo- 
crites I • " 

We could multiply tenfold these extracts from eminent 
Protestants, to show the terrible condition and tendencies of 
the Christian bodies of our world at the present time; but 
perhaps these will be all we can now give for want of space. 
Every intelligent person knows that these statements are true. 
Yet we are charged with great bigotry for stating these things. 
Will Eld. Canright accuse these persons of great bigotry who 

have made statements fully as strong as any that we have 
made ? Every intelligent man knows that the statements we 
have inserted above are true; that the Protestant churches, 
as this report of the True Wesleyan states, are repeating the 
experience of the Jewish Church after rejecting the doctrine 
of Christ's first advent. We have page upon page of extracts 
before us, from which we could present striking and powerful 
pictures of the sins now being practiced by the churches ; such 
as church lotteries, gambling, grab-bags, dancing, card-play- 
ing, etc 

It is a well-known fact that Governor-'Washburn, of Wis- 
consin, in his public message to the legislature of that State, 
expressed himself against the practices of the churches, and 
charged them with being the nurseries of this pernicious spirit 
of gambling, etc Just think of it, kind reader, a church of 
Jesus Christ rebuked by a politician before a legislature, for 

Hear what Mr. Moody said at Baltimore:— 

"And there are your grab-bags— your grab-bags I There is 
too much of this. Your fairs and your bazaars won't do, and 
your voting, your casting of ballots for the most popular man 
or the most popular woman, just helping along their vanity. 
It grieves the Spirit; it offends God. They have got so far 
now that for twenty-five cents young men can come in and 
kiss the handsomest woman in the room. Think of this ! 
Look at the church lotteries going on in New York I Before 
Go£ I would rather preach in any barn, or in the most miser- 
able hovel on earth, than within the walls of a church paid for 
in such a way. What is the use of going to a gambling den 
when you can have a game of grab with a lady for a partner ? " 

The utterances of the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, the most em- 
inent Baptist divine in the world, are particularly pertinent 
in this connection. Mr. Spurgeon has quite recently with- 
drawn from the English Baptist Union, and here are his 
views with regard to the condition of affairs in the churches:— 

" A new religion has been initiated [in the Baptist churches], 
which is no more Christianity than chalk is cheese And this 
religion, being destitute of moral honesty, palms itself off as 
the old faith with slight improvements, and on this plea 
usurps pulpits which were erected for gospel preaching. The 
atonement is scouted, the inspiration of Scripture is derided, 
... the punishment of sin is turned into fiction, and the res- 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

urrection into a myth ; and yet these enemies of our faith ex- 
pect us to call them brethren, and maintain a confederacy with 
them ! 

* " At the back of doctrinal falsehood comes a natural decline 
of spiritual life, evidenced by a taste for questionable amuse- 
ments, and a weariness of devotional meetings. . . . 

" The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making in- 
fidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those 
preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith. A plain man 
told us the other day that two ministers had derided him be- 
cause he thought we should pray for rain. A gracious woman 
bemoaned in my presence that a precious promise in Isaiah 
which had comforted her had been declared by her minister 
to be uninspired. It is a common thing to hear working-men 
excuse their wickedness by the statement that there is no hell 
—the parson says so." 

We will give one more extract on this painfully unpleasant 
subject. It is from the Watchman and Reflectory the leading 
paper of the Baptist denomination:— 

" A member of a church went to his pastor and entreated his 
intercession with his favorite son, who had become ruinously 
addicted to the vice of gambling. The pastor consented, and 
seeking the young man, found him in his chamber. He com- 
menced his lecture; but before he concluded, the young man 
laid his hand upon his arm and drew his attention to a pile of 
splendid volumes that stood upon the table. 4 Well,' said the 
young man, 4 these volumes were won by me at a fair given in 
your church; they were my first venture; but for that lottery, 
under the patronage of a Christian church, I should never 
have become a gambler.' " 

We well know that there are pious, devoted people in the 
churches, who look upon these practices with all the abhorrence 
that we do. But we know at the same time that they are not 
sufiiciently strong to check these wicked practices that are 
sanctioned by the leading members of the popular churches. 
If there is an influence in the church which is sufficient to meet 
these things, why are they permitted to exist year after year, 
and thus continue to depart from the principles of Christianity 
as taught by our Redeemer more and more ? These things, as 
we have said, show that these churches, as bodies, have fallen, 
and that corruption is rapidly gaining possession of them; 
but we believe that God has a truth in the earth with which to 
call his people out from such corruption. 

Will Eld. Canright hold up these whom we have quoted as 
uncharitable? He has tried to make it appear that the Sev- 
enth-day Adventists generally are unjust and unchristian; but 
has he found any statements which we have ever made 
stronger than those made by popular clergymen? The evi- 
dence is overwhelming to prove that the statements we have 
advanced concerning the religious bodies of the present day 
are correct. And he knows they are true. The fact is, the 
whole tendency of popular Christianity at the present time is 
worldly, and the ambition of the church is to be a great power 
in the world, and to rule over the nations,— very much as the 
J ews hoped that the Messiah would come and place them over 
all the nations of the earth. This was why they rejected Jesus 
at his first advent. They did not love the humble, self-deny- 
ing doctrines which he taught They had no interest in labor- 
ing for that salvation which he set before them. Their desire 
was to be among the great, proud, rich, and influential of the 
earth; hence they rejected the lowly Galilean— the Man of 
sorrows. They never would have him to reign over them. It 
is much the same to-day in the religious bodies of the world; 
they are courting the world, and the world is courting them, 
until there is very little difference between them. 

In saying this we do not deny but that there are many good 
things favored by the churches ; but there are many Unitarians 
and Universalists and skeptics and unbelievers who are just 
as much in favor of morality and good government as the 
churches themselves. As the great commentator, Albert Barnes, 
declared years ago, the churches were for a long time the bul- 
warks of slavery. They have not led in the reforms of the 
day, more than others. Many of the most eminent philan- 
thropists for the past fifty years were not members of the 
orthodox churches. And yet there are large numbers of most 
excellent, devoted people who are members of these churches. 
We make these statements to show that the badge of church 
membership is not a distinguishing mark of morality or re- 
form. These are facts which every intelligent person under- 
stands. Seventh-day Adventists feel that they have a special 
work to warn the world of Christ's coming and prepare a 
pure, holy people for that event. Of course, holding these 
views of popular Christianity, and like honest men proclaim- 
ing them at proper times, leave them without the sanction of 
these popular bodies. We expect to meet opposition every- 
where we go. As far as they do right, we wish them God- 

Digitized by the Center jot Adventist Research 

— 74 — 

— 75 — 

speed. In everything good wh ich they teach, we are in hearty 
sympath y. We venture the assertion that there is not a church 
in the land in which so large a per cent of its membership fa- 
vor temperance and prohibition and vote for them, as among 
Seventh-day Adventists. As a body they were unanimously 
opposed to slavery in the days of its supremacy, and we claim 
that there is not a single true reform agitating the public 
mind with which we are not in hearty sympathy. Yet of course, 
being comparatively a small people, and having a great work 
to do in proclaiming doctrines which we consider important 
for the benefit of our fellow-men, we cannot scatter our efforts, 
and make specialties of things outside of the one great object 
which has given us an existence— a proclamation to prepare a 
people for the coming of Christ These are the positions we 
hold. We believe before God they are right and true. 



Connected with the Seventh-day Adventist movement 
from the beginning there has been one by whom this people 
believe that God has been pleased to reveal many things 
through vision. There has been no effort to conceal this 
work, but, on the contrary, the books setting it forth have 
gone everywhere in the front rank with other books. They 
have been openly advertised for sale to all purchasers, and all 
have been publicly invited to examine the matter for them- 

The fact that a woman, a public and prominent laborer in 
this cause, has visions, is considered a splendid point of attack 
by the enemies of this work, and the mad-dog cry is imme- 
diately started- 14 Jezebel," "sorcery," " Swedenborgianism," 
"Shakerism," "Mormonism," etc. Eld. Canright, having 
now determined to tear down the cause he has labored for 
years to build up, starts out on the same line of policy, joins 
this unworthy crowd, and commences his attacks upon Mrs. 

What reason have these people for making her the object of 
so much venom and vilification ?— None whatever. Person- 
ally she has never done them an injury, nor given them any 
cause of complaint She has adhered steadily to the work to 
which she believes the Lord has called her, laboring to clear 
her soul from every shadow of unfaithfulness, by earnestly 

warning against every sin, and exhorting all to the work of 
thorough repentance and the practice of every Christian virtue ; 
and not once since the commencement of her work, has 
she deigned to step down into the arena to dabble with the 
floods of misrepresentation that have been poured out after 
her, nor to enter into personal controversy with any of her 
defamers. For the sake of truth and justice, however, oth- 
ers have seen fit from time to time to pay a little attention to 
these things, as on the present occasion. 

The first attempt made is to represent us as holding the 
visions in a manner to supersede the Bible. Thus Eld. C. 

"Mrs. E. G. White, wife of the late Eld. White, leader of 
the Seventh-day Adventists, claims to be divinely inspired as 
were the prophets of the Bible. This claim is accepted by 
the whole denomination. They defend her inspiration as 
earnestly as they do that of the Bible." 11 Among themselves 
they quote her as we do Paul." "Thus they have another 
Bible, just the same as the Mormons do." And Mr. Morton 
says: "If the apostles contradict her 'visions' and 'Testi- 
monies,' so much the worse for the apostles I" 

All these utterances are designed to convey the impression 
that we place the visions of sister White on a level with, or 
even above, the Bible; and that, as Mr. Morton says, if the 
writings of the apostles did not agree with her views, we 
would discard the declarations of the apostles, and receive her 
testimonies in preference thereto. We indignantly repel all 
such insinuations. These things have been reiterated long 
enough. Let a single line from any of our published works 
be produced, if it can be found, sustaining any such view. If 
it cannot be found, will they cease the calumniation? This, 
surely, is a reasonable challenge. 

Is it necessary that we state our position again ? We stand 
on the great Protestant platform that "the Bible and the 
Bible alone" is our rule of faith and practice. We believe 
that God by his grace and his providence has given existence 
to the book we call "the Bible" as a revelation of his will to 
man ; that holy men wrote it, as God spoke to them face to 
face, or moved upon them by the Holy Spirit, or reveared 
truths to them in visions or dreams, or by the influence of his 
Spirit called up to unerring remembrance experiences through 
which they had passed; that thereby we have a volume com- 
posed of the Old and New Testaments, which God calls his 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 76 — 

— 77 — 

"two witnesses" (Eev. 11:8); that this volume is complete 
in itself, and is to have nothing taken from it nor added to it; 
and that this is set forth as the standard and test of all moral 
teaching, all spiritual exercises, and all revelation purporting 
to be either human or divine. The skeptic would call this 
a very fanatical view of the Scriptures; but so we hold, 

But these Scriptures make provision for the operation of 
the Holy Spirit, not only in ordinary, but in extraordinary 
methods in the church to the end of time. These latter are 
explicitly enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. 
They have been expressly " set in the church." 1 Cor. 12: 28. 
Prophecies of their especial revival in the last days, are numer- 
ous. See Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 1:7; Rev. 12:17; etc. 
Among these is expressly mentioned the gift of u prophecy " 
(1 Cor. 12:4, 10; 13:2) ; and in Joel's prophecy of the opera- 
tion of the Spirit in the last days, "prophesying, seeing vis- 
ions, and dreaming dreams" are particularly mentioned, 
showing that the gift of prophecy is to be manifested through 
vision. But what was given in this way would not constitute 
another Bible nor an addition to the Bible. The gifts were in 
.general operation in the days of the apostles. But when Paul 
said that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," there 
is no evidence that he referred to the work of the four daugh- 
ters of Philip, the evangelist, "which did prophesy" (Acts 
21 : 9), nor of Philip when an angel of the Lord spoke to him, 
and instructed him to go toward the south, where he met the 
Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26), nor of Cornelius when he was 
instructed in vision by an angel to send for Peter (Acts 
10:3), nor of those who came down from Jerusalem to An- 
tioch (Acts 11:27), nor of Agabus who bound himself with 
Paul's girdle, and declared, "through the Holy Ghost," that 
thus the owner of the girdle should be bound at Jerusalem. 
Acts 21:11. Nor has "the abundance of the revelations" 
with which Paul was favored (2 Cor. 12:7), been incorporated 
into the book known as " the volume of inspiration." They 
probably related more -to the local duties and necessities of 
those times. But in all these instances, as well as those men- 
tioned above, God was imparting instruction to his people by 
his Holy Spirit; though it was not designed to enter into that 
volume which he was preparing for the world as a general 
revelation of his will. 

In saying this, we detract in no jot or tittle from the sacred- 

ness or Importance of the gift of prophecy in the church, nor 
of our obligation to be instructed thereby. When a manifesta- 
tion is given, and, being tested by the Scriptures, is found in 
the circumstances of its giving, its nature, and its tendency 
to be a genuine operation of the Spirit, we would submit to 
any candid person to say how it should be regarded. It comes 
to us as a divine message; it is "a ray of light from the 
throne"; it is instruction by the Holy Spirit; and to resist it, 
knowingly, is to resist the Spirit, as did the Jews to whom 
Stephen said: "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart 
and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers 
did, so do ye." Acts 7 : 51. 

The manifestation of the gift of prophecy, ordinarily, ac- 
cording to the cases referred to, involves a vision ; and a vis- 
ion involves the agency of angels, as "He saw in vision . . . 
an angel of God coming in to him," etc. Acts 10:3. The 
one in vision talks with the angel, and receives instruction 
from him. So Paul, in vision, was caught up into the third 
heaven, into paradise, evidently into the presence of God, and 
heard words not possible to be expressed in human speech (2 
Cor. 12:1-4, margin) ; and when a person under such circum- 
stances receives a message from the Lord to be imparted to 
men, could he, or she, say anything less than that it was a 
message from the Lord, and whatever treatment they ac- 
corded to it, it was to the Lord and not to her? In so saying 
she does not " vault herself right into the place of God him- 
self," as is "slanderously reported." Rom. 3:8; Advocate, 
Oct. 8, 1887. If, to illustrate, the President of the United 
States should send a message by a courier to the collector of 
customs at New York, and the courier should tell the collector 
that it was a message from the President, and that as he 
treated it, so he would be treating the President, would he 
thereby " vault himself right into " the presidential chair ? 
Nonsense I 

And the angelic agency may be the same that was em- 
ployed in the visions of Daniel and John. John says : " And I 
fell at his [the angel's] feet to worship him. And he said unto 
me: ... I am thy fellow-servant, and [the fellow-servant] of 
thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God; 
for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." The 
41 spirit of prophecy " must be the same as u the gift of proph- 
ecy," even If we read it, "spirit of the prophecy," as some 
prefer. Then the language of this angel would imply that he 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 78- 

-79 — 

had charge of the gift of prophecy, or was the one particularly 
concerned in the manifestation of that gift; and that, as he 
was the one then present with John, he would be the one 
present with those who had in exercise the gift of prophecy. 
This angel can easily be identified with the one through 
whom Daniel received communications. 

And the operation of the gift of prophecy, the u seeing vis- 
ions," according to the prophecy of the last days, may be in 
circumstance and manner, almost if not quite identical with 
those of the visions given in the times of both Daniel and 
John. At any rate, the condition of sister White in vision 
corresponds exactly with that of Daniel and John, as they 
have themselves described it. See Daniel 8:27; 10:8-17; 
Eev. 1 : 17. 

But now Eld. Canright comes forth in the role of a medical 
examiner, and pronounces all sister White's visions the result 
of catalepsy, hysteria, and ecstasy ! On the same ground we 
may decide that Daniel and John had some wonderful cata- 
leptic fits ; for the conditions are the same. Does he know that 
in this cavil he is following in the footsteps of skeptics who 
bring the same objection against the visions and the revela- 
tions of the Scriptures themselves, that is, that they are the 
result of diseased bodies and disordered imaginations? But 
such is the fact, as noticed by Dr. Geikie. Let us see how we 
could ever have a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy on this hy- 
pothesis. "I will pour out my Spirit," says the Lord, M upon 
all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall proph- 
esy." The time arrives, the Spirit is poured out, and some 
daughter in Israel begins to have visions. Of course the truth 
has its enemies, and especially every manifestation of the 
Spirit meets with violent opposition. And as the conditions 
of one in vision become manifest— suspension of all external 
senses, no strength, no breath, unconsciousness to all earthly 
scenes, as seen in ail true visions according to the Scripture 
narratives— they cry out, "Oh! no vision! no fulfillment of 
prophecy I cataleptic fit I " 

We shall not attempt to follow our new doctor into all the 
profundity of this medical science, but may be allowed to refer 
to a fact or two which are within the comprehension of 
common people. Webster quotes Dunglison as his best au- 
thority on medical questions ; and under " catalepsy " he says : 
"(Med.) A sudden suspension of the action of the senses and 
of volition, the body and limbs preserving the position given 

them, while the action of the heart and lungs continues.— 
Dunglism." But in the case of sister White, the body and 
limbs do not preserve the position given them, do not retain 
a fixed position, but she makes such calm and graceful gest- 
ures as the nature of the scene before her suggests; and the 
action of the lungs does not continue. So there cannot be 
much catalepsy here. Under "hysteria" he says: "(Med.) 
A species of neurosis or nervous affection, generally occurring 
in paroxysms, the principal characteristics of which consist 
in alternate fits of laughing and crying, with a sensation as if 
a ball . . . proceeded through the stomach, chest, and neck, 
producing a sense of strangulation. It is sometimes attended 
with convulsions, and is variable as to the time of attacking 
a person— Dunglison." Wonderfully like sister White when 
in vision, isn't it, as those can testify who have witnessed 
it ! It is enough to give a man catalepsy, hysteria, and every- 
thing else, to hear such things applied to her. Such a won- 
derful case of catalepsy ought to engage the attention of the 
medical fraternity throughout the United States. 

1T .'e cannot dwell longer upon this part of the subject In 
his closing article in the Advocate, he devotes a portion of the 
space to "Mrs. White's Mistakes ; " and in a few words re- 
specting these, the reader may be interested. 

L The old shut-door hobgoblin is again thrust forward. As 
the first mistake, it is charged upon her that she saw in vision 
that there was no more salvation for sinners after 1844. This 
we deny in toto. See explanations on another page and in 
different numbers of the Review, and other works, especially 
in " Early Writings." 

2. She represents that there will be slaves when Jesus 
comes; but there are now no slaves. Hence there is here a 
great mistake. Is any one able to predict to a certainty that 
there will be no slaves when Christ appears? Not only is the 
vision involved in this matter, but Rev. 6:14r-17, as well. 
That speaks of " free men" and "bondmen" together, when 
the great day of wrath comes. Rev. 18 : 13 also speaks of slaves 
as a part of the merchandise of great Babylon, at the time of 
her destruction. We know that political and social chaos is 
before this nation, and who can tell to what lengths the bad 
traits of men will then carry them? It is altogether too soon 
to predicate a failure on this point. 

3. " Nations angry " thirty-eight years ago. He thinks " it 
takes them a long time to get fighting mad." The anger of 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 80- 

— 81 — 

the nations began with the great revolution of 1848. They 
have been "fighting mad" much of the time since; but the 
winds have been held. Rev. 7 : L 

4, 5, and 6. " Some looking too far off for the coming of the 
Lord." "Time for Jesus to be in the most holy place nearly 
finished." " A few months only [left] in 1849." See all these 
fully explained in "Answers to Objections to the Visions." 

7. " She broke the Sabbath for eleven years." All she saw 
upon the subject was, that the Sabbath commenced at " even." 
Astronomical and nautical science was allowed to fix "even" 
at 6 o'clock, till a further examination showed that the Bible 
will admit of no other definition of "even" for the. com- 
mencement of the day but sunset. This shows the danger of 
letting "science" govern Biblical questions. 

8. Immediate destruction predicted to men who have left 
them. The mistake the objector makes here is in supposing 
that she refers to their " destruction " ; whereas she refers 
only to their going so far from the truth as to preclude their 
return. And no believer will deny this. 

9. Under this head mention is made of "the rebellion," 
"slavery," "conduct of the war," "interference of England," 
" fall of our nation," and the "seeming impossibility for slav- 
ery to be done away." " It seemed impossible," she says, 
for the war to be conducted successfully, and for slavery to 
be done away. This does not say that either of these things 
would not be, but speaks only of the outlook at a certain time. 
Much of that vision relates to the future. And when the 
" timebf trouble such as never was since there was a nation " 
comes, when Michael stands up, that is, when the king- 
dom of Christ begins (Dan. 12:1), who can predict what 
changes will occur ? It is too soon yet to decide that question. 

These are all the points which he thinks worth while to 
bring before the readers of the Advocate; but he promises a 
forth-coming book, by which we presume he designs to sweep 
away clean everything which his articles have left It will 
receive due attention, if thought w oi thy of it, when it ap- 
pears, u. s. 


Ingratitude to those who have shown us much love and 
many acts of kindness, is never commendable. Repaying such 
acts of favor with bitterness and misrepresentation is still 
worse. And worst of all do such things appear when we 
abuse the reputation of those who have treated us with special 
affection, after they have gone to the silent grave and cannot 
answer for themselves. We dislike to use language that 
would fitly characterize such conduct in the case of Eld. Can- 
right. We could hardly have believed he would ever descend 
so low in his treatment of S. D. Adventists as to invade the 
cemetery, and dig up the dust and bones, figuratively speak- 
ing, of the honored pioneer of this denomination— the la- 
mented Eld. James White, who for some six years has been 
peacefully sleeping from his ardent and sacrificing labors. 
The honor (?) of doing such work, so far as we have knowl- 
edge, since the old veteran's death, belongs wholly to Eld. C. 
He is entitled to all its benefits. We know of none who will 
desire to share it with him save the Christian (?) Oracle, of 
Des Moines, Iowa, which furnished him a fitting channel 
through which to pour out this stream of gall and bitterness 
upon the tomb. The fountain and channel are mutually ap- 
propriate to each other. We quote from this paper's issue of 
Aug. 14, 1887, from Eld. C. :— 

" My first doubts were aroused by the tyrannical, domineer- 
ing course of Eld. James White. Time and again I have seen 
a whole Conference sit for hours like whipped dogs, and take 
the most terrible denunciations from him. It made my blood 
boil; yet, like a coward, with the rest I dared not say a word^ 
though we all knew it was unjust As Mrs. White upheld 
him, generally, it led me to doubt her inspiration and the 
whole doctrine." 

11 In 1873 1 spent a few weeks with Eld. White in Colorado. 
We had an open rupture, followed by a scathing 4 testimony ' 
from Mrs. White, which 1 knew to be untrue in many re- 

u But we soon made up, and I went on all right for years, 
with only a slight brush with Eld. White once or twice. But 
that was nothing peculiar to me, for there was not a leading 
man in the whole ranks with whom he did not some time have 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 82 — 

— 83 — 

a quarrel, the same as with me. If there is such a man, let 
him speak out." 

"Under date of Battle Creek, Mich., July 13, 1881, just a 
few weeks before he died, Eld. WLite wrote me thus: 'I have 
repeatedly abused you, and if you go to destruction, where 
many, to say the least, are willing you should go, I should 
ever feel I had taken part in your destruction. . . . I do not 
see how any man can labor with me. . . . Forgive my mis- 
takes, and believe me when I say that every* part of your long 
letter seems just and right.' Eld. White was a strong man, 
with some excellent qualities, and some very objectionable 
ones. Such humble confessions made to me by Eld. White, 
time and again, held me with them, when in my better judg- 
ment I knew things were not right." 

These efforts to present the lamented Eld. White as a ty- 
rant, domineering over everything, quarreling with all his fel- 
low-laborers, dealing out " terrible denunciations " right and 
left, and putting the whole denomination in terror, so that a 
whole Conference has sat "for hours like whipped dogs," 
Eld. Canright may think is a very creditable performance on 
his part It shows the spirit and taste of the man when left 
to manifest his more unaniiable traits, his coarser qualities, 
when driven on by that spirit which seems to take possession 
of those who give up God's truth. In other days he had friends 
to counsel with him, and save him from making an exposure 
of these unlovely qualities. But as he has cast these aside, 
he seems to have found none to fill their place. We pity him, 
and would advise his orthodox friends to step in and, if possi- 
ble, save him from himself. Teach him that which we sup- 
posed all persons of good breeding knew, to speak decently, 
at least, of the dead. 

But in reference to Eld. White, we, as one of many who ever 
expect to revere his memory, denounce as a gross misrepre- 
sentation these statements. It is anything but a correct deline- 
ation of Eld. White's character and public life. He was not a 
quarrelsome man in any such sense as this term is usually un- 
derstood. He was a man of strong feelings, very energetic, 
firm as a rock for what he thought was right, and one who 
dared to speak his mind when he thought duty required it He 
was not turned aside easily in efforts he considered necessary 
for the good of the cause; and if his bretliren stood in the 
way of such moves, he expressed his mind plainly concerning 
their attitude. These qualities sometimes brought unpleasant 

tilings into public meetings, which were a source of sorrow to 
him and to others. He was a man of great forethought and 
ability to plan and execute, and was generally right in his 
plans and undertakings. But he was human, and conse- 
quently erring, as humanity always is, and sometimes made 
mistakes. But, as Eld. Canright is constrained to say, when 
he saw he was wrong, he was free to admit it and acknowl- 
edge it, even publicly. He was one of the noblest-hearted, 
most generous men in many things, I ever met, and as such 
had the confidence of our people and multitudes of friends 
who will ever revere his memory. Eld. White carried the 
heaviest kind of a burden in leading out, with his wife, in the 
early days of this movement. He had many hard and thank- 
less duties to do, which wore upon his spirits and aged him 
prematurely. He had as many as four distinct shocks of pa- 
ralysis, some of them so severe that his life was despaired of, 
and he came very near the brink of the grave. His friends 
could but notice the effect of these and the wear and tear of 
hard labor upon his nervous system, in his later years. 
These things made him appear at times at a disadvantage. 
He got the reputation, with some persons of little consider- 
ation, of being irritable. But most of our brethren had sense 
and religion enough to make allowance for the old, stanch, 
earnest captain, fighting his Master's battles, who was so se- 
verely worn, and they did not store away every little incident 
which might for the time being seem a little unpleasant, to 
rankle in the heart, to bring out on a favorable occasion with 
which to demean his memory. They have a high respect for 
him as a noble veteran in the cause of God. The citizens of 
Battle Creek, and many prominent men of the State of Mich- 
igan who knew him, had a high regard for him. In a volume 
giving the biographies of leading men of Michigan who have 
left honored names because of their enterprise, ability, and 
sterling qualities, Eld. White has a very favorable place. 

The writer had a long and intimate acquaintance with him, 
and for many years was associated with him in labor, and 
sometimes we did not agree, and unpleasant things occurred. 
Yet I never saw the day but that I had a high regard for him 
as a man of many noble qualities, as an earnest Christian ; 
and God forbid that I should ever follow Eld. Canright's 
course in publishing to the world such statements as he has 

The fact is, Eld White showed a special interest for Eld. 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 

— 84 — 

— 85 — 

C. He gave him a Bible and a pair of charts, and encouraged 
him to go into the ministry when he was little known among 
our people. He often took him to his house and treated him 
like a son. No doubt he did reprove him at times, and who 
shall say he did n't need it? Eld. C. appeared to think much 
of him. A little while before his death, when Eld. C. mar- 
ried his present wife, Eld. White was the man who was 
wanted to "tie the knot" In the very words Eld. Canright 
quotes from his private letters just before his death, Eld. W. 
writes a tender confession to him. His heart was generous 
to a fault when he thought he had done a person a wrong. 
He is represented as asking Eld. C. to forgive his faults and 
mistakes. Eld. C. himself says, "He humbly owned up all 
I claimed with regard to his course." And now, kind reader, 
what do you think of the course Eld. Canright has pursued 
toward one who had treated him in such a way, and man- 
ifested toward him just before his death such a humble, 
Christian spirit? Do you think you would publish him to 
the world as a tyrant, quarrelsome, domineering, ill-tempered, 
lording it over God's heritage ? Can you see anything to ad- 
mire in such a course in the man who writes it or the paper 
which publishes it? We leave you to answer. These things 
would never have been done but for a miserable, vindic- 
tive, unchristian spirit cherished in the heart against the peo- 
ple from whom he has turned away. 

We now notice his treatment of Mrs. White, who still lives. 
In regard to her he blows cold and hot by turns. At times 
she is one of the most devoted persons on earth, an earnest 
Christian, honest, benevolent, pure-minded, working unself- 
ishly for humanity, a friend of the poor, and worthy of the 
highest respect. Then again she is an oppressor, a fanatic 
who never ought to be permitted to speak in a Christian pulpit, 
one who deceives the people, whom he compares to Mo- 
hammed, Joe Smith, Ann Lee, etc, etc. 

To a common person not given to lofty tumbling or the sci- 
ence of the acrobat, these two positions would seem irrecon- 
cilable. But lest the reader will think we misrepresent, we 
will quote from the Elder. In one of his public efforts " ex- 
posing" Adventism, in Otsego, Mich., last summer, Eld. W. 
C. Gage, of Battle Creek, Mich., was present. He testifies as 
follows concerning the Elder's statements about Mrs. White: 
44 He said the question would very naturally be asked if Mrs. 
White was a fraud or a bad woman. He was ready to reply 

at once that she was not ; that she was as good a woma as 
he knew. Her piety was unquestioned, and as to ability he 
said there was not one woman in a thousand who was equal 
to her in point of natural ability and that which is acquired 
by cultivation. He said he had lived in her house and there- 
fore was well acquainted with her. She was a kind-hearted 
woman, philanthropic, charitable, and gentle in her life, and 
ever evinced a great love for humanity. He stated that she 
was doubtless honest in supposing she had revelations from 
God, and really thought they came from that source, when in 
reality they were hallucinations of her own mind." 

These statements of Eld. Gage are not given as the exact 
words he used, but express the substance of what he said 
concerning her character. They are literally true, as thou- 
sands of people not of our faith are willing to testify where 
she is known best. That Eld. C. should say so in view of his 
present feelings toward her, is positive proof of his knowl- 
edge that her character is unassailable. He would not be 
likely to say so in the presence of a public congregation, 
when he was about to ridicule her as he did, and do what he 
could to break down confidence in her work, unless she was 
generally known to be a woman of true excellence and 
Christian integrity. The favorable testimony of an enemy 
is the highest kind of evidence. And now let us hear on the 
other side of this question :— 

" A people are to be pitied who are so narrow and bigoted 
that they cannot allow any one to be a Christian or even hon- 
est who does not see things just as they do. That is one of 
the worst features of Seventh-day Adventism. They get this 
from Mrs. White, who condemns everybody that dares to re- 
ject her testimonies. 1 know that this is so."— Canright in 
Christian Oracle of Aug. 4, 1887. 

This statement as to S. D. Adventists and Mrs. White I 
know to be utterly untrue. There are thousands all around 
us not of our faith whom our people believe to be as honest 
Christians as ourselves, and Eld. C. knows it. Why do we 
not stop all our efforts to reach men who do not believe with 
us, if we think they are all dishonest ? This is one of those 
extravagant statements the Elder so often makes. Mrs. 
White is one of the last persons to condemn those who do not 
embrace her testimonies. She always counsels the people 
to leave them perfectly free to investigate and decide for 
themselves, without bringing any pressure upon them. She 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research 


does speak, however, against those who have helieved them 
and known of them for years, who go out and misrepresent 
her and her work. But how can Mrs. White be at the same 
time such a pious, kind-hearted, devoted person, and yet so 
bigoted and unjust as to ''condemn everybody " who dares to 
reject her testimonies ? This is a conundrum we leave the 
Elder to solve. 

In the Michigan Christian Advocate of Oct. 13, 1887, he 
shows his high appreciation of Mrs. White by comparing her 
with Ann Lee, Joseph Smith, Joanna Southcott, and others; 
and the work of S. D. Adventists with that of the Shakers, 
the Mormons, and the followers of Mrs. Southcott. The com- 
parison, in his judgment, seems greatly in favor of those im- 
postors and fanatics, as he believes them all to be; while Mrs. 
White and the poor Adventists are far behind them in real 
success and spiritual power. Speaking of the Southcott 
movement, he says: "The present Seventh-day Adventist 
move is small and feeble compared to that. After forty-three 
years' effort they number lass than one third as many." 
Speaking of the inspiration of the Mormons, he says: "The 
proof of their inspiration beats Mrs. White's all to pieces. . . . 
They have increased ten times as fast as the Adventists." 
Writing of Ann Lee, he says: "She exceeds Mrs. White in 
this line" (purity and holiness) "so that 'Shaker' has be- 
come a synonym for honesty." The despised Adventists, 
you see, are nowhere compared with those fanatics. This is 
from the man who stayed with them " twenty-eight years," 
and was so eminent among them, and felt so badly when he 
had to leave all his old friends ! It almost killed the poor fel- 
low to leave the society of such a set of narrow-minded fa- 
natics I What a commentary on the Elder's religious training ! 
And he tells us, "Since I was converted among the Method- 
ists, thirty years ago, I have never once backslidden nor ceased 
an active Christian life either in private or public." Strange 
how he could keep his piety so immaculate in such a society 
that was really worse off than the Mormons and Shakers I 

But to show his opinion of Mrs. White and her work, we 
will introduce the comparison he makes between her and her 
work and people, and Mrs. Southcott and her work. He 
says: "This movement, occurring only thirty years before 
Mrs. White's work, was almost exactly like the present Sev- 
enth-day Adventist move. An illiterate woman is the leader. 
She has visions, writes numerous pamphlets and revelations, 

predicts the speedy advent of Christ, and says the Jewish 
Sabbath must be kept," etc. Then in another place he 
speaks of Mrs. Southcott : " She regarded herself as the bride 
of the Lamb, and declared herself, when sixty-four years of 
age, pregnant with the true Messiah, the 'second Shi) oh,' 
whom she would bear Oct 19, 1814. She surrounded herself 
with prophets, and in order to prepare herself for the new 
dispensation ordered the strictest observance of the Jewish 
Sabbath. A costly cradle was kept in readiness for the recep- 
tion of the Messiah, and for a long time she waited for his 
birth. At last a supposititious child was declared to be he. 
But the fraud was detected." 

And this was the movement which the Elder declares over 
his own name "was almost exactly like the present Seventh- 
day Adventist movement" And this is the kind of an impres- 
sion he is trying to give the world, of the people he has so 
thoroughly known for "twenty-eight years." He has been in 
the mill, and "knows all about them." What conclusion 
could strangers to our faith draw concerning Mrs. White and 
S. D. Adventists from such language? "Almost exactly 
alike." Think of it, candid reader. Here was a woman 
who made the most ridiculous prediction possible, and tried 
her best to palm off a fraud to carry out her deceptions, and 
yet her work and that of Mrs. White are " almost exactly 
alike," the difference being that the latter is really insignifi- 
cant compared with that of Southcott I And yet in another 
place Mrs. White is an " honest, devoted Christian," one of 
the best he ever knew. What sort of wine of " Babylon " has 
our old acquaintance, D. M. C, been drinking since he left us, 
that his mind is so disordered ? Yet he wonders we do n't feel 
perfectly placid while he is "conscientiously " doing his duty 
to the world by making such statements and showing up our 
" fanatical " character. 

We now present statements made by him concerning Mrs. 
White, in a handbill, in the city of Grand Rapids, Mich., when 
we were holding our camp-meeting there the last of Septem- 
ber, 1887. His agents were sent upon the ground with thou- 
sands of these to circulate among the crowds on his "Sunday 
Lord's day," his new sacred day. This attack upon Mrs. 
White was wholly unprovoked by her. 

He commences his attack upon her by this heading :— 

"Mrs. E. G. White to the Professed Christian Churches 
in Grand Rapids," and continues by quoting out of their 

Digitized by the Center fmAdventist Research 

— 88 - 

— 89 — 

connection sentences from her writings which he thinks he 
can make appear most objectionable. We give several speci- 
mens, as follows :— 

4 1 saw the state of the different churches since the second 
angel proclaimed their fall. [1844.] They have been growing 
more and more corrupt; yet they bear the name of being 
Christ's followers. It is impossible to distinguish them frem 
the world. Their ministers take their texts from the word, 
but preach smooth things. . . . Satan has taken full possession 
of the churches as a body. The sayings and doings of men 
are dwelt upon instead of the plain, cutting truths of the word 
of God. . . . They are Satan's own faithful servants, notwith- 
standing they have assumed another name. I saw that since 
Jesus had left the holy place of the heavenly Sanctuary 
[1844], and had entered within the second vail, the churches 
were left as were the Jews; and they have been filling up 
with every unclean and hateful bird. I saw great iniquity 
and vileness in the churches; yet they profess to be Chris- 
tians. Their professions, their prayers, and their exhortations 
are an abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, God 
will not dwell in their assemblies. Selfishness, fraud, and de- 
ceit are practiced by them without the reprovings of con- 
science. And over all these evil traits they throw the cloak 
of religion. . . . Jesus and the angel look upon them in 
anger. Said the angel, Their sins and their pride have reached 
unto heaven. Their portion is prepared. Justice and judg- 
ment have slumbered long, but will soon awake.'— Spiritual 
Gifts, vol. 1, pp. 1S9, 190, by 

"MRS. E. G. WHITE, prophetess. 

"The above quotations from Mrs. White show her attitude 
and that of her people toward all other churches and Chris- 
tians. Every intelligent man knows it is an outrageous slan- 
der upon the Christian churches and Christian people of the 
land. If she had said that some bad men creep into churches 
and some churches tolerate them, it would do; but she makes 
the sweeping statement th^at 1 Satan has taken full posses- 
sion of the churches as a body, 1 and that they ' are filled 
with fornication and adultery, crime and murder.' Is this 
true ? Is it anywhere near true ? Is it not shamefully false ? 
If these things were generally known, they would justly shut 
her out of every pulpit in the land. 

14 The people are invited to hear her at the camp-ground. 
Will they hear anything like that ?— No, indeed. Her words 

will be smoother than oil. These statements are made for 
her people to read. Scores of copies of them will be sold on 
the ground. If it is said that these quotations are garbled, 
let the books be called lor and read. In public she preaches 
finely on popular subjects, as temperance, conversion, etc.; 
but to her people, writes as above. I have been through the 
mill, and know ' the true inwardness ' of it. I repeat that she 
rules that people with a rod of iron, and meddles with the 
most private affairs of families and individuals." 

That the reader may appreciate the animus of this attack, 
let him take in the situation. Mrs. White was a total stranger 
in Grand Rapids. She came there to talk wholly on religious 
themes, and benefit the people by teaching temperance and 
Bible religion. She had not spoken in any way publicly of 
Eld. Canright, and did not during her stay. She had treated 
him kindly, and like a son, in the past. Yet without one 
word of provocation from her, Eld. C. caused such a docu- 
ment to be circulated in every way possible among strangers, 
to rouse up the most uncharitable feelings. Is it any wonder 
that after waiting many months, during which he has been 
pouring out his bile through the papers, to go to all parts of 
the world, we should at last be compelled to expose such 
attacks as these after such outrageous treatment? 

Let us notice the assential unfairness of this attack, and 
these quotations from her writings. They are taken, let the 
reader notice, from "Spiritual Gifts," vol. 1, pp. 189, 190. This 
volume was published in 1858. It presents a connected view 
of the " Great Controversy between Christ and Satan," com- 
mencing with the fall of Satan, presenting many incidents in 
the great plan of salvation and reaching down to the bringing 
In of the new heavens and new earth, long after the close of 
probation. This volume is now out of print. These extracts 
are taken from the chapter on the " Sins of Babylon," a period 
embraced in the view she presents reaching from 1844 to the 
close of probation. It is evident that she is speaking mainly 
of the time just before the coming of Christ takes place, when 
corruption will have completely permeated the great religious 
bodies. This is evident because this chapter is placed between 
two other chapters, the first headed, u The Shaking Time, 11 
and the other, "T/ie Loud Cry." Anyone who knows the 
views of Seventh-day Adventists is familiar with this fact, 
that they believe there is to be a u great shaking " out of half- 
hearted believers from the Advent body before the Lord will 

Digitized by the Center fq^Adventist Research 

— 90 — 

mightily work r for them, and prepare them for the " loud 
dry" of the Third Angel's Message of Rev. 14 : 9-12. This 
"loud cry" just precedes the appealing of Christ, and we be- 
lieve it is still future. The shaking time is mainly future also. 
Now this chapter on the "Sins of Babylon" is placed chron- 
ologically by the writer herself between these two, both of 
them future. Any candid mind can readily see that her terri- 
ble description of the state of things in the churches refers, 
therefore, largely to the future, though much that she says 
applies to the condition of things existing in them already. 
The strongest expressions, such as "Satan has taken full 
possession of the churches as bodies," most likely refer to 
them just before probation closes. 

But in these very extracts, the most objectionable he could 
find in all her writings, she speaks of the condition of the 
churches as a progressive one toward evil, e. g., " The ch arches 
were left as were the Jews ; and they liave been filling up 
with every unclean and hateful bird." They were not filled 
up, but "filling " up. Here is a changing process going on as 
among the Jews. God in his mercy long spared that people 
after they had as a body rejected Christ's first advent. So 
after the churches as bodies reject the proclamation of his 
second advent, he bears with them while the process of cor- 
ruption goes on apace. 

In another column this matter is explained in an article on 
the "Fall of Babylon." 

Notice now the manifest unfairness of Eld. Canright's at- 
tack on Mrs. White. To prejudice the people against her, he 
represents these statements of hers as applying at a time when 
he has every reason to know they do not apply, and then de- 
clares her statements, to be " shamefully false ," and states 
that they would justly " shut her out of every pulpit in the 
land." We leave the candid reader to decide who has been 
engaged in the work of falsehood. 

Notice again how harmonious (?) are Eld. Canright's state- 
ments of Mrs. White. At one time she is "honest," a "de- 
voted Christian," a humane, pure, noble-minded woman. 
Then again she makes statements " shamefully false," and is 
unworthy to be in any " pulpit in the land." Beautifully con- 
sistent, is it not? 

We now cite one more statement of the Elder's con- 
cerning Mrs. W. It was printed in the Grand Rapids 
Daily Democrat of Sept 23, 1887, just before our camp-meet- 
ing commenced :— 

— 91 — 

" She rules that people with a rod of iron, dictating in ev- 
erything, in doctrine and discipline, in diet and dress, in pub- 
lic affairs and private, hi marriage, in family matters, in ev- 
erything." Then after quoting a sentence from her writings 
out of its connection, he adds : " Hence she meddles with the 
most private affairs of families, till, to a person of spirit, it be- 
comes an intolerable bore." " 4 To be ruled by a busybody is 
more than human nature can bear.' "—Macaulay. 

This most malignantly false statement of Eld. Canright we 
will let the Elder himself answer. In a series of articles 
written by Eld. Canright, and published in the Review 
and Herald, entitled a "Plain Talk to Murmurers," com- 
mencing March 15, 1877, he says concerning the same woman : 
"As to the Christian character of sister White, I beg leave to 
say that I know something about it. I have been acquainted 
with sister White for eighteen years, more than half the his- 
tory of our people. I have been in their family time and 
again, sometimes weeks at a time. They have been in our 
house and family many times. 1 ha^e traveled with them al- 
most everywhere; have been with them in private and public; 
in meeting and out of meeting; and have had the very best 
chance to know something of the life, character, and spirit of 
brother and sister White. As a minister, I have to deal with 
all kinds of persons, and all kinds of characters, till I can 
judge something of what a person is, at least, after years of 
intimate acquaintance. I know sister White to be an unassum- 
ing, modest, kind-hearted, noble woman. These traits in her 
character are not simply put on and cultivated, but they spring 
gracefully and easily from the natural disposition. She is not 
self-conceited, self-righteous, and self-important, as fanatics 
always are. I have frequently come in contact with fanatical 
persons, and I have always found them to be full of preten- 
sions, full of pride, ready to give their opinion boastfully of 
their holiness, etc But I have ever found sister White the 
reverse of all this. Any one of the poorest and humblest can 
go to her freely for advice and comfort without being re- 
pulsed. She is ever looking after the needy, the destitute, 
and the suffering, providing for them and pleading their cause. 
I have never formed an acquaintance with any person who 
so constantly has the fear of God before them. Nothing is 
undertaken without earnest prayer to God. She studies God's 
word carefully and constantly. 

"I have heard sister White speak hundreds of times, have 

Digitized by the Center 

Adventist Research 

— 92 — 

read all her 1 Testimonies' through and through, most of them 
many times, and I have never been able to find one immoral 
sentence in the whole of them, or anything that is not strictly 
pure and Christian, nothing that leads away from the Bible 
or Christ ; but there I find the most earnest appeals to obey 
God, to love Jesus, to believe the Scriptures, and to search 
them constantly. I have received great spiritual benefit, times 
without number, from the 4 Testimonies.' " M If I have any 
judgment, any spiritual discernment, 1 pronounce the 1 Tes- 
timonies ' to be of the same spirit and of the same tenor as the 
Scriptures." " For thirty years these 1 Testimonies ' have been 
believed and read by our people. How has it affected them ? 
Has it led them away from the law of God? Has it led them 
to give up faith in Christ ? Has it led them to throw aside the 
Bible? Has it led them to be a corrupt and immoral peo- 
ple ? I know that they will compare favorably with any other 
Christian denomination. One thing I have remarked, and 
that is that the most bitter opponents of the visions admit that 
she is a Christian. Ho,w they can make this admission is more 
than I know. They try to fix it up by saying that she is de- 
ceived. They are not able to put their finger upon a single 
stain in all her life, nor an immoral sentence in all her writ- 
ings. They have to admit that much of her writings is ex- 
cellent, and that whoever would live out all she says 
would be a good Christian, sure of heaven. This is passing 
strange if she is a tool of the Devil, iuspired of Satan, or if 
her writiugs are immoral or the vagaries of her own mind." 

We do not cite these passages from the Elder's writings to 
convince any one that these " Testimonies " are inspired. This 
is not our object, but merely to let the reader see what kind 
of a woman Mrs. White was in the Elder's estimation after 
such an intimate acquaintance with her for "eighteen years." 
But did he not change his mind soon after this ? Did he not 
come to believe Mrs. White's writings were evil and she a 
meddlesome, tyrannical fanatic as he now claims ? 

We answer this question by referring the reader to Eld. 
Canright's Confession, published originally in the Review 
and Herald of Oct. 7, 1884, and now reprinted in these 
pages. This confession was made only about three years 
since, and Eld. C. himself will not claim Mrs. White's char- 
acter has changed since then- 
Is it not astonishing that a man of his parts can change 
about with such recklessness, in so short a time, that he 

Digitized by the Center 

— 93 — 

dares to place statements so utterly contradictory before the 
great public? JSo man can reconcile these statements. 
Was he telling the truth about Mrs. White when he was 
among us? Thousands of us know those earlier statements 
are literally true. Many eminent citizens of Battle Creek 
and other places where she is best known, not of our faith, 
would testify to the same effect. The leading citizens of 
Battle Creek, the prominent business men of the place, ar- 
ranged a meeting for her to speak on some subject of her own 
choosing, and publicly invited her in the Daily Journal to do 
so at her recent visit here after the Grand Rapids camp- 
meeting. She complied, and spoke to a large congregation. 
The Adventists had nothing to do in bringing this about. 
This shows clearly whether she is considered a "fanatic," or 
one unworthy to speak in any " pulpit " or not. The follow- 
ing notice of the meeting appeared in the Battle Creek 
Journal of Oct. 5 :— 

"There was a good attendance, including a large number 
of our most prominent people, at the lecture of Mrs. Ellen G. 
White, at the Tabernacle, last evening. 

"This lady gave her audience a most eloquent discourse, 
which was listened to with marked interest and attention. 
Her talk was interspersed with instructive facts which she had 
gathered in her recent visit to foreign lands, and demonstrated 
that this gifted lady has, in addition to her many other rare 
qualifications, a great faculty for attentive, careful observa- 
tion, and a remarkable memory of details. This, together 
with her fine delivery and her faculty of clothing her ideas in 
choice, beautiful, and appropriate language, made her lecture 
one of the best that has ever been delivered by any lady in 
our city. That she may soon favor our community with an- 
other address, is the earnest wish of all who attended last 
evening; and should she do so, there will be a large at- 

We now bring this article to a close. If Eld. Canright told 
the truth about her, as we know he did, in years past, he cer- 
tainly is not telling truth in his recent statements. If he was 
telling falsehoods then, how can we believe his present state- 
ments ? We leave him to solve this enigma. 0.LB. 

Adventist Research 

— 94 — 

— 95 — 


The following article from Eld. Canright, referred to on 
page 92, was published in the Review of Oct 7, 1884, under 
the heading, "To my Brethren, the S. D. Adventists: "— 

" Most of the readers of the Review know the part which I 
have acted in the cause for many years, both in preaching and 
in writing. They also know that for two years past I have 
dropped out of the work. I wish here to state why this was 
so. Some twelve years ago I received a testimony from Sr. 
White. I felt that it was too severe, and that some of it was 
not true. Instead of holding on to my faith in the work and 
to God, and waiting for him to make it clear, I became tried, 
and quit preaching a short time. But I soon got mostly over 
this, and went to work again, though I did not feel exactly 
right toward Sr. White, nor fully accept all the testimony. 

u Some five years since, I received another testimony while 
under great discouragement. This I did not receive at all well, 
but felt hard toward Sr. White, and soon quit the work en- 
tirely. But I found no comfort that way, and so, after a short 
time, went to preaching again. Still I was not heartily in sym- 
pathy with all parts of the work, especially the 4 Testimonies.' 
I thought I would preach practical truth largely, and as much 
of the message as I liked; but this did not work, as the breth- 
ren were not satisfied, neither was I. So I went to farming, 
resolved to live a devoted life, and to do all I could that way. 
But 1 soon found my doubts and fears increasing, and my 
devotion decreasing, till, at length, I found myself largely 
swallowed up in my work, with little time, taste, or interest 
for religious work. 1 felt sure the 4 Testimonies ' were not 
reliable, and that other views held by our people were not 
correct So it always is when a person lets go of one point of 
the truth— he begins to drift, he kuows not whither. 

"A short time since, I attended the Northern Michigan camp- 
meeting with Eld. Butler. Here we had a long time for 
consultation, prayer, and careful examination of my difficul- 
ties. I began to see that at least some of my objections were 
not tenable, and that I myself was not right and in the light. 
Coining to the Jackson camp-meeting, we continued the in- 
" vestigation, and carefully read over and examined my testi- 
monies. 1 saw that 1 had put a wrong meaning on some 
things, and that other things were certainly true. If these 

were true, then 1 had certainly been wrong all the way 
through. Light came into my mind, and for the first time in 
years I could truly say I believed the 1 Testimonies.' All my 
hard feelings toward Sr. White vanished in a moment, and I 
felt a tender love toward her. Everything looked different. 
Then I felt how wrong, sinful, and in the dark I had been. 
My sins came up before me as never before in all my life. Like 
Job I cried, ' Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust 
and ashes.' 

"I deeply feel that in my past labors I have lacked in spirit- 
uality, humility, and a close walk with God. I have often 
been too hasty and harsh in my labors. I will never rest till 
all this is changed, and 1 become a tender-hearted, devoted 
shepherd of the flock. I will submit to any humiliation, 
shame, or cross that will fit me to win souls to Christ. I 
think that my disbelief of the * Testimonies ' and other truths 
has come by opening my heart to doubts, cherishing them and 
magnifying them. How many times I, like others, have sol- 
emnly professed my unbounded faith in the Third Angel's 
Message! Is it not reasonable that God should try us in 
some way to see whether our faith is real and genuine? A 
faith that cannot stand under some difficulties, that cannot 
hold on to great facts and truths against some apparent ob- 
jections, that cannot remember bright experiences while go- 
ing through dark places —such a faith is not a reliable one. 
If God really has a great and special message to be given, is 
it not reasonable that the faith of his people, especially those 
who are chosen to bear that message, should be tried ? Surely 
it is just what we might expect 

" Looking back to similar movements in God's work, we find 
that his people were always thus tested. When God led 
Israel out of Egypt, after he had given them marked proof 
of his presence among them, then he allowed adverse circum- 
stances to come upon them to try their faith. Deut 8:1-3. 
How did they stand this test? Many of them immediately 
cried out, ' Is God among us or not ? ' Ex. 17 : 7. So Jesus, 
likewise, tested the faith of his early disciples. In the first 
part of John 6, Jesus wrought the miracle of feeding the five 
thousand. So profoundly impressed were they by this mir- 
acle that they rose up to make him king right there. On the 
next day, when Jesus taught them some very cutting truths, 
they said, 4 This is an hard saying ; who can hear it ?' Verse 
60. ' From that time many of his disciples went back, and 

Digitized by the Center j^mkdventist Research 

— 96 — 

walked no more with hira.' Verse 66. Though they had 
had so plain evidence that God was with him, yet when 
something was presented which looked very objectionable to 
them, their faith failed, and they backslid and left the party. 

K I am now thoroughly satisfied that the work of the Third 
Angel's Message is no exception to this rule, but that our strong 
professions of faith in it will sooner or later be tested se- 
verely. How many times I have publicly and solemnly pro- 
fessed my unbounded confidence In this truth I How clear 
and connected, how marvelously beautiful, the whole system 
looked to me I How confident I felt that the Bible over- 
whelmingly sustained it, and that I would even die for it! 
But, like Peter, 1 did not know myself till God left me to be 
tried. I feel greatly humbled under the shameful failure I 
have made. 

"Friday, Sept 26, while on the camp-gronnd at Jackson, 
Mich., 1 felt in my heart the most remarkable change that I 
ever experienced in all my life. It was a complete reversion 
of all my feelings. Light and faith came into my soul, and I 
felt that God had given me another heart. I never felt such 
a change before, not even when first converted, nor when I 
embraced the message, nor at any other time. I believe it 
was directly from Heaven— the work of the Spirit of God. I 
now believe the message as firmly and more understanding^ 
than ever before; and I want to say to all my friends every- 
where, that now I not only accept, but believe, the testimo- 
nies' to be from God. Knowing the opposition I have felt to 
them, this change in my feelings is more amazing to myself 
than it can be to others. 

u Such nearness to God, such earnest devotion, such solemn 
appeals to live a holy life can only be prompted by the Spirit 
of God. Where that is, there 1 want to be. I am fully satis- 
fied that my own salvation and my usefulness in saving 
others depend upon my being connected with this people and 
this work. And here I take my stand, to risk all 1 am, or 
have, or hope for, in this life and the life to come, with this 
people and this work. D. M. Cakright." 


Eld. Canrtgut likens Seventh-day Adventists to men 
on the shore tanning a musquito's hide, while the crew 
is perishing in the water before their eyes. In the Ad- 
vocate of Aug. 13, 1887, he says:— 

Digitized by the Center 

-97 — 

Jacob Knapp, in rebuking hair-splitting theologians, said: 
41 It is not God, but the Devil, who sets men tanning a mus- 
quito's hide on shore, while a shipwrecked crew are perishing 
unhelped before them." There is a volume of sense in that 
homely remark. It well illustrates the work of the seventh-day 
people. They will compass sea and land, and turn the world 
upside down to get one good old Christian to re6t on Saturday 
and work on Sunday, while thousands of lost souls are dying 
all around them, uncared for. How much better to assist In 
the great work of leading sinners to Christ, instead of hinder- 
ing those who are doing It ! 

What has seemed to be Eld. C.'s principal work since 
his new departure?— Exposing Adventism. Now we 
submit to the reader to decide whether it is any worse to 
spend one's time tanning a musquito's hide, than it is to 
spend it fighting the men who are tanning the musquito's 
hide, while the crew is perishing just the same all the 
while. From what he said we supposed we should be- 
hold in him the sublime spectacle of a man avoiding all 
strife on controverted points, and devoting himself to 
the work, pure and simple, of saving souls. But such 
does not seem to be the case to any marked degree. 

He admits that the seventh-day church is a good, de- 
voted, Christian church; and he claims to have brought 
a thousand into that church during his twenty-two years' 
ministry. That averages about fifty a year. Does he 
think he could have done any better in any other Chris- 
tian church? or that he will do any better in the future? 
Do ministers generally average more than fifty converts 
each a year, for twenty years in succession? Then has 
he not, as a Seventh-day Adventist, brought as many 
souls to Christ during this time as he would have done 
in any other connection? 

But he may say, Some of these were brought from 
other churches. Very well ; he seems more anxious now 
to get all people out of this good Christian S. D. A. 
church into other churches, than ever he did to get people 
out of other churches into this. In what respect is hia 
present position, therefore, preferable to his first ? 

u. s. 

ventist Research 

— 98 — 


We notice quite a difference in the tone of Eld. C/a 
arguments, according to the views of the paper for which 
he writes. Thus, while writing for the Methodist paper, 
the organ of a denomination which has strenuously 
maintained the unceasing obligation of the ten command- 
ments, he says: — 

P. 8. : Lest my position should be misunderstood before I 
have time to explain it, I will say here that I believe as 
strongly as Sabbatarians do in the perpetuity of the holy im- 
mutable law of God, and every moral precept taught in the Old 
Testament. The Methodist Discipline (Articles of Religion, sect. 
6) exactly expresses my position on the law : " Although the 
law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites, 
doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof 
of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwith- 
standing, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of 
the commandments which are called moral." — Advocate, Sept. 
24, 1887. 

Now he knows, as all know, that the Methodist Dis- 
cipline by the expression, "the commandments which 
are called moral, " means the decalogue, the ten com- 
mandments, as they were spoken by God from Sinai, and 
written on the tables of stone. So the Methodists will 
get the idea that Eld. C. agrees with them in this, and so 
be much pleased. But when he is writing to an Anti- 
nomian paper, as the Christian Oracle, of Des Moines, 
Iowa, instead of saying what is to be understood that no 
Christian whatsoever is free from obedience to the deca- 
logue, he says that all Christians are free from it; for it 
has been nailed to the cross, and taken out of the way. 
Thus in the Oracle of June 9, 1887, we read the follow- 
ing from his pen:— 

The simple facts, I believe, are these: Paul [in Col. 2: 
14-17] refers to the entire Jewish system, the law of Moses as 
a whole, of which the decalogue was only a small part. Every 
word of the ten commandments, Sabbath included, was written 
by the hand of Moses, on parchment, right in with the rest of 
the law of Moses. (See Deut. 5, and other places.) As an 
entire system, as a law taken in all its parts, it was a burden- 
some system, a yoke of bondage, a school master designed only 
to lead us to Christ. It was against us and contrary to us, and 
as such it was nailed to the cross. The decalogue being written 

Digitized by the Center 

on parchment in the book of the law, it would be proper to 
speak of it as blotted out, nailed to the cross, etc., with the rest 
of the law. 

Eld. C. would not dare address such language to the 
Methodist Advocate. If he did, it would not be published, 
llus is being all things to all men with a vengeance. 

u. s. 


Perhaps there Is no point upon which opposers of 8. D. Ad- 
ventists and Mrs. White try harder to cast an unfavorable 
impression, than that of the "shut door." They strenuously 
endeavor to make it appear that S. D. Adventists, from 1845 
to about 1851, believed there was no salvation for sinners; that 
the "door of mercy" was eternally closed, and not a soul, 
except those who had believed the advent doctrine with Mr! 
Miller and his followers, could by any possibility be saved. 
They try their uest to make this statement stand against Mrs. 
White and her husband, and declare positively that this is taught 
in her visions. Eld. Canright must, of course, rehash this old 
exploded falsehood, or he would not have a good standing with 
the other worthies who have propagated it. Hear him, in the 
Michigan Christian Advocate of October 13, 1887:— 

<\>"V? Sh . Ut + d0 P r ; Mter Ume P a88ed * 1844, Seventh- 
day Adventists believed that probation had ended, that there 

th£ ?° more /Q salvation for 8in ners. Eld. Butler confesses that 
SJf. ™ ?°; f (^Review and Herald, March 3, 1885.) Mrs. 
White believed this, and had a revelation saying so, and here it 
JJ. The reformations that were shown me, were not reforma- 
tions from error to truth, but from bad to worse; for those who 
professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a 
religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart 
£ome appeared to have been really converted so as to deceive 
kod's people, but if their hearts could be seen they would ap- 
forV\ i *! C T, My Mcom P"yIng angel bade me look 
cL i \ ravai ! °* 60ul for sirmers as ™ed to be. I looked, but 
could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past.'— Present 
Truth, page 22, published in August, 1849. They may quibble 

enough to any candid man." 
In the above notice is the expression, " After the time passed 

fpr Adventist Research 

— 100 — 

In 1844, Seventh-day Adventists believed that probation had 

ended, that there was no more salvation for sinners. Eld. But- 
ler confesse* that this Is so." Eld. Butler " confesses " no such 
thing. The deceptiveness of the statement will appear when 
we state that there was not an S. D. Adventist in the world in 
1844. The present movement had not commenced till some 
time after that. We do not deny that many of the Advent be- 
lievers, when the time passed, did believe their work for sinners 
was done for some little time, and that Borne who afterward be- 
gan to keep the Sabbath participated in this view for a season. 
There was quite a space of time after that before the present 
move was inaugurated. Several years passed before the believ- 
ers were fully acquainted with the views held now,— years of 
patient study of the Bible till the truth was grasped link by 
link. So S. D. Adventists cannot be made responsible for views 
held before this denomination existed, or the present truth was 

We will go a step farther, and say, S. D. Adventists did hold 
to a doctrine called the " shut door." They believed, in har- 
mony with Rev. 3:7, 8, and other scriptures, that at the close 
of the long prophetic period of 2300 years of Dan. 8: 14, Christ 
changed his ministration from the first apartment of the heav- 
enly Sanctuary to the most holy place, and entered upon the 
work of the investigative Judgment, changing his relation in 
this repect to the plan of salvation. Here was a door opened 
and a door shut Their work then was very unpopular, and 
they were shut away by this fact from any in labor but Advent 
believers. But we do emphatically deny that S. D. Adventists or 
Mrs. White believed that any repentant sinner who would come 
to Christ would be refused. It is a slander to say the contrary. 
We also declare, with no fears of contradiction, that during this 
very period when Eld. C. and other opposers of the same Ik- 
teach that she and others believed there was no salvation for 
sinners, she and they were laboring for Vie conversion of sinners. 
Hence their statements cannot be true. 

In 1885 the writer, who was a youth at the passing of the 
time in 1844, and quite well acquainted with the Advent people, 
wrote a series of articles for the Review and Herald on the 
4i Advent Experience" and the shut door, in which all these 
charges were thoroughly sifted and answered. To give the reader 
some idea of the conclusions reached, we will give the conclud- 
ing article, No. 9, of the series: — 

In No. 8 we gave extracts showing that what is called the 
"shut door" doctrine was held by the believers in 1850-51. 
But we also clearly proved that it excluded only those who re- 
jected the light. We quoted from Eld. White's language the 
very strongest expressions which our opponents can find by 

Digitized by the Center 

— 101 — 

'bich they try to make it appear that it was thought that none 
but the believers in '44 could be saved. We have 8( en how 
utterly they have failed to prove their position. We will now 
resent other evidences confirming our statements. On page 
72 of Present Truth, published in Oswego, N. T., April, 
1850, we have the following item: — 

U A very interesting work is now going on among the children of the 
! remnant m this city. Their salvation has been the principal sub- 
ect in our meetings for the last two Sabbaths, and God has wonder- 
«„i y °'. e * sed us ; T , he truth has had a g° od eff ect on us as well as on 
oar children In the evening following the last first day we had a 
meeting for their special benefit, and the Spirit of the Lord was poured 
£?; i °.i! r midst ' ^ he childr en all bowed before the Lord, and seemed 
to feel the importance of keeping the commandments, especially the 
fifth, and of seeking salvation through Jesus Christ. This was one 
or tne most interesting meetings that I ever witnessed. 

As this seems to be editorial matter (for there is no sig- 
nature to it), it must have been from the pen of Eld. White. 
This was published just one month before the article contain- 
ing the lengthy extract from his pen which we quoted last week, 
and which contains those strong statements about the shut 
door, which opposers say prove that he believed there was no sal- 
vation for anybody but old Advent believers. Here we see him 
laboring, no doubt in connection with bis wife, with the deep- 
est interest for the dear children who were "seeking salvation." 
God greatly blessed them in their efforts. This had been their 
principal work for two weeks. It had been a great blessing to 
them and their children. Yet our opponents conclude from 
what he published a month later, that they believed none of 
these children could be saved because they were not believers 
in '44. They were laboring with all their might for the salva- 
tion of those who they thought could not be saved I This may 
be their conclusion, but certainly it is not ours. We know 
therefore, that they held no such views of the shut door as op^ 
posers attribute to them. 

In the November number of Present Truth, pages 84, 85, 
we have an account of the conversion of young persons, and the 
baptism of one who must have been too young to have been a 
believer in 1844. This passage occurs in a letter of S. W. 
Rhodes's, who was a prominent laborer at that time, and shows 
what kind of a shut door they believed in. 

On the last page of the last number of Present Truth, in 
a letter from Eld. Joseph Bates, we find the following: "Our 
meeting at Waitsfield was blessed of God. Bro. and Sr. Butler 
came from Waterbury with Brn. Chamberlain and Churchill; 
Bra. Hart and Bailey came from Northfield; and those in the 
place, with Bro. Lockwood's family, composed our meeting. 
Bro. Butler finally yielded to the truth." 

We personally remember this time as though it were but ye* 

entist Research 

— 102 — 

terday, although it was in 1 850. Mother had been keeping the 
Sabbath about a year. Father was much opposed to it, though 
a strong believer in the great Advent movement of the past. 
The light on the Sanctuary subject brought him to accept the 
seventh-day Sabbath. We notice this meeting because the 
name of Bro. Churchill is mentioned. His was one of the very 
first cases of conversion from the world to the present truth, 
which occurred after 1844. As we have said, their work hith- 
erto had been almost wholly for the u lost sheep of the house 
of Israel "—the old Advent believers. They saw that unbe- 
lievers showed no interest in the truths which were so precious 
to them, and therefore their attention was directed to those who 
loved the Advent faith, and they labored ardently for them. 
This, evidently, was in the order of God. Heman Churchill, of 
Stowe, Vt., the one here mentioned, had not been engaged in 
the Advent movement of 1844. He had married, after this, a 
daughter of Sr. Benson, a '44 Adventist. I remember him well 
as he came to Waterbury, Vt., and attended meeting in my fa- 
ther's house, where a few met from time to time. They were 
quite surprised at first that one who had been an unbeliever 
should manifest an interest in the Advent doctrine. He was 
not repulsed, but welcomed. He was earnest and zealous; and 
as they discerned in him sincerity, they accepted him as a true 
convert. I cannot remember the exact date when he com- 
menced to 6eek God, though I recollect clearly his attending 
meetings at Waterbury, Vt. But we know from this letter of 
Eld. Bates's, that it was previous to this meeting held in the fall 
of 1850 ; for he was then at the meeting referred to in Waits- 
field, Vt., as a believer. Bro. Bates calls him "Brother." His 
conversion was noised abroad quite extensively. Now, if our op- 
ponents were correct in their statements that the believers held 
to a shut door which entirely excluded all except old Adventists, 
how could Heman Churchill have been received as a true con- 
vert? Thi6 is positive evidence that their assertions are untrue. 
There is not an instance which can be found in the early his- 
tory of tbis cause where any one manifesting sincerity in seek- 
ing God was ever repulsed. They were most glad of any evi- 
dence that such desired the blessing of God. 

In a letter recently received from Bro. Ira Abbey, of North 
Brookfield, N. Y., whose name is signed to the statement at the 
close of this article, I take the liberty of making the following 
After the time passed I was a strong shut door believer. But 
when the Third Angel's Message was preached, I with my wife em- 
braced it. Between 1846 and 1850 Bro. and Sr. White came to our 
house, and were very zealous for the children and those that had not 
rejected the truth. They labored for unconverted souls, and never 
do I remember of hearing Sr. White say that there were no hopes of 
the unconverted ; but there were hopes of the backsliders and those 
that had not reiected the truth. 

Digitized by the Center 

— 103 — 

This is an extract from a private letter, and was not written 
for publication; but the testimony is so clear we venture to in- 
sert it. 

We next present an extract from a statement written by 
Marion C. Truesdail, and signed by herself and five others:— 

During Miss Harmon's (now Mrs. White) visit to Paris, Me., in the 
summer of 1846, I stated to her the particulars of a dear friend of 
mine whose father had prevented her attending our meetings; conse- 
quentlv she had not rejected light. She smilingly replied, -God 
never has shown me that there is no salvation for such persons. It 
tl ? 08e , who !? ave had the n S ht of tratn Presented to them and 
tamwingly rejected it." Miss Harmon's reply coincided with my idea 
or a shut door, and in justice no other could be derived from it. 

The fact here presented is certainly a decisive one as to the 
nature of the shut door In which they believed, even as early as 

We now present a very explicit and comprehensive statement 
covering this whole shut door experience, of believers in the 
Third Angel's Message previous to the year 1851. There are a 
goodly number of living witnesses who embraced the truth at 
that early date, who know whether these statements are true or 
not. Why should not their testimony be considered in this con- 
nection? We have obtained the signatures of quite a number, 
all of whom embraced the truth as early as 1850, and aU were in 
the '44 movement : — 

We, the undersigned, hnving been well acquainted with the Advent 
movement in 1844, at the passing of the time, and having also embraced 
the truths of the Third Angel's Message as early as 1850, hereby cheer- 
ily subscribe .our names to the following statement concerning the 
•nut door doctrine held by believers in the Third Angel's Message from 

mu lme 8 ri8e to tne last-mentioned date, and onward 

e 7*5 e i ed ' L n harraon y with Rev. 3: 7. 8, and other scriptures. 
£ i at j ne ol08e <* the 2300 days of Dan. 8: 14 Christ closed his work 
nL? e . a P a ^ ment of the heavenly Sanctuary, and changed his 
ministration to the most holy, and entered upon the work of the Judg- 
ment, changing his relation in this respect to the plan of salvation 

S was a door °P ened and a door shut. 
crJ?r e 7r Delieved that those who had the clear light upon the First An- 
W i % 8 % &g ^ a £ d tunied a ^ ain8t it, bitterly opposing it, were re- 
th?f d w Go i' Bu l they did not believe that those who had not had 
X i2f5 . « r *i h 086 ? ho * , had not 001116 to y° arB of accountability previous 
jected 8Gek G ° d With h0ne8t heart8 ' wou *^ be re_ 

J hey Del j eved with William Miller and the great mass of 
^ventists immediately after the passing of the time, that their work 
ror the world was done, and that the Lord would come very soon vet 
arterthe light upon the Sanctuary and the third message explained 
ineir disappointment, they did not believe that marcy was past save for 
inose who had rejected the light. 

J. B. Sweet, South Saginaw, Mich. 

Samuel Martin, west Rindge, N. 1L 

Lra Abbey, North Brookfield, N. Y. 

Airs. K. B. Abbey, North Brookfield, N. Y. 

Mrs. Diana Abbey, North Brookfield, N. Y. 

Mrs. L. B. Abbey, North Brookfield, N. Y. 

Adventist Research 

— 104 — 

Heman S. Gurncy, Memphis, Mictu 

Ann E. Gurney, Memphis, Mich. 

Wm. Gifford, Memphis, Mich. 

Mrs. Mary S. Chase, Bnttle Creek, Mich. 

Mrs. S. M. Howland, Buttle Creek, Mich. 

Mrs. F. EL Lunt, Battle Creek, Mich. 

Mrs. Melora A. Ashley, Battle Creek, Mich. 

Mrs. Caroline A. Dodge, Battle Creek, Mich. 

Mrs. Sarah B. Whipple, Battle Creek, Mich. 

Mrs. Uriah Smith, Battle Creek, Mich. 

Mrs. Paulina R. Heligass, Moline, Kan. 

R. G. Lockwood. St. Helena, Cal. 

Mrs. R. G. Lockwood, St. Helena, Cal. 

Reuben Loveland, North Hyde Park, Vt. 

Mrs. Belinda Loveland, North Hyde Park, Vt. 

Here is an argument which it will be hard to answer,— more 
than a score of living witnesses testifying clearly and emphatic- 
ally to what they know concerning the shut door doctrine. On 
the other hand, our opponents who raise such a hue and cry 
about the shut door had no practical knowledge of the matter. 
They were not in the movement themselves, and they have ob- 
tained at second hand what knowledge they have concerning it, 
while the witnesses we have quoted were actors in the message, 
and know whereof they affirm. We have demonstrated beyond 
all question that our opponents accuse the early believers 
falsely when they say they taught there was no salvation save 
for those who were Advent believers previous to 1844. 

These persons are every one living, and most of them 
reside at the same places here given. Eld. Canright knows 
most of them, and we venture the assertion that he will not 
impugn the testimony or truthfulness of one of them. Every 
one of them had the statement preceding their signatures, and 
carefully considered its contents. Are these statements not 
worthy of as much confidence as those of persons who never knew 
anything whatever of the circumstances personally ? Let the 
reader judge. We know whereof we affirm. 

Mrs. White's statement, quoted by Eld. C. at the head of 
this article, relates, as the connection shows, to characteristics 
of many modern revivals led by men who had rejected the light. 
There was not the travail of soul for sinners with them, but a 
light, frivolous, frothy spirit, such as is often seen in modern 
revivals. Our time has been cursed with such. Such reviv- 
als have little of the deep searchings of heart seen among 
the early Methodists and Baptists. We pity the man who can- 
not see the difference. The men who led in such revivals had 
rejected the light, and God rejected them. The time of "their 
salvation " was "past." This is what she has always said she 
meant in this statement. This is precisely in .harmony with 
her actions in laboring for sinners, as we have seen, at the very 
time in which these opposers say she did not believe they could 

Digitized by the Center 

— 105 — 

be saved. This is what these twenty-one unchallenged, truth- 
ful, living witnesses positively declare from their own knowl- 
edge was true. Shall we take Eld. Canright's declarations 
about something he had no knowledge of whatever, in prefer- 
ence to theirs ? Let those take it who prefer it. 

Let the reader further notice that Mrs. White's language 
quoted above does not necessarily include all revivals by any 
means. "The reformations that w r ere shown me," she says. 
This is far from saying that all reformations would be of this 
character. The fair interpretation of her words would simply 
imply that she was shown a peculiar phase of things in the re- 
ligious world characteristic of the last days, the superficial nature 
of many so-called revivals of religion. They are indeed a won- 
derful evidence of the nearness of the end. They are fast fill- 
ing up the churches with unconverted people. All intelligent 
observers notice this as an astonishing thing. Mrs. White 
pointed this out in 1849. We now see its fulfillment 

G. I. B. 


We refer to a brief extract which Eld. Canright has quoted 
over and over again, from an article by the writer in Review 
of March 22*1887. The quotation is as follows: "In leaving 
us he has taken a much more manly and commendable course 
than most of those who have withdrawn from us, coming vol- 
untarily to our leading brethren and frankly stating the con- 
dition of mind he was in. He did this before his own church 
in our presence, and so far as we know has taken no unfair, 
underhanded means to injure us in any way. He goes from 
our midst with no immoral stain upon his character, and 
chooses associations more pleasant to himself. This is every 
man's personal privilege if he chooses to take it" 

The Elder evidently finds much satisfaction in this simple 
statement, quoting it, as he does, so often. He evidently 
thinks the writer's indorsement to the extent given, very val- 
uable. We suppose he feels his need of something of the 
kind, or he would not make so much of it We greatly fear, 
however, that he has forfeited by his course since even as 
much of a character for fairness, justice, or righteousness as 
this would seem to give him. 

We wrote that statemeut in the interests of peace and good 
will, and in view of the oft-repeated promises of the Elder 

; Adventist Research 


— 106 — 

that he would do nothing whatever to tear down our work. 
When he wrote to us that he was receiving lettei-s from pri- 
vate persons censuring him and imputing evU motives, hurt- 
ing his feelings, etc., we wrote the article containing the 
above, hoping to allay all feelings of hostility among our peo- 
ple. This was but a few weeks after he left us. He had not 
then commenced his bitter raid upon us through the pulpit 
and press. We truly desired, on our part, to have nothing 
done to stir up strife. We wished to give him the best chance 
possible to carry out his oft-repeated statement that he should 
confine himself wholly to revival and church work, and seek 
alone to save souls. Had he done so, this pamphlet 
would never have seen the light of day. We should not have 
disturbed him or hindered him. 

The writing of the article containing this extract is one of 
the strongest possible evidences that his oft-repeated state- 
ment that S. D. Adventists will never permit one to leave 
them in peace is untrue. Why should the writer,, holding the 
positions he does in this cause, pen such an article in our lead- 
ing paper, speaking in this kindly manner of Eld. Canright 
after he had fully left us and joined another church, urging 
our people to give him kind treatment and not impugn his 
motives or stir him up in any way, unless we had sincerely de- 
sired to treat him well? We thus showed our, desire to let 
him depart in peace. He alone is responsible for the con- 
troversy which has ensued. Of course he knows full well 
that his use of this good-character extract in the way he has 
used it, and under the changed circumstances of the case, is a 
perversion of its original intent; that in justice he has no 
right to it since he has been doing as he has, utterly contrary 
to the circumstances under which it was given. But the Elder 
never lets such considerations stop him in any cherished pur- 
pose. He fails to manifest that fine sense of honor which we 
should expect to see in some men. On the whole, we do not 
regret that we cultivated peaceable relations with him when 
he left us. This fact only makes his own course seem the 
more reprehensible. g. l b. 

Digitized by the Center 

— 107 — 


Considerable handle, I understand, Is being made in some 
directions, of the fact that the editor of the Review has been 
troubled over the question of the visions, has been unsound on 
that question, and at one time came very near giving them up. 
It strikes me that this Is quite a small amount of capital to work 
up much of a trade on — " came very near giving them up " — 
but did n't 1 I also, at one time, came very near getting run 
over by the cars, and rolled into jelly; but I didn't, and so 
continue to this day. 8ome have met just such a catastrophe. 
The difference between them and myself is that they did, and I 
did n't. Some have given up the visions. The difference be- 
tween them and myself is the same — they did, and I did n't. 

Just how near I ever did come to giving them up, I am will- 
ing any one should know who wishes to know, if it can be de- 
termined. Perhaps I have not come so near as some suppose; 
perhaps not so near as I have supposed myself. That I have 
had, in my experience, occasional periods of trial, I do not deny. 
There have been times when circumstances seemed very per- 
plexing; when the way to harmonize apparently conflicting 
views, did not at once appear. And under what have seemed, 
for the time, strong provocations to withdraw from the work, I 
nave canvassed the question how far this could reasonably be 
done, or how much of this work could consistently be surren- 
dered. I have pondered the questions whether this point was 
not inconsistent, or that absurd, or the other out of harmony 
with reason and revelation ; and whether this feature ought not 
to be re-adjusted, or the other set aside entirely. All this 
ground I have gone over as thoroughly as any one of no more 
ability than myself could go, and with as great a degree of can- 
dor as any one in as much darkness as I was in, would be likely 
w maintain. But the weight of evidence has never in my mind 
balanced on the side of surrender. 

This I can say, that never, since I became fully acquainted 
with that system which we denominate " the present truth," so 
as to comprehend it in its sublime proportions, its divine har- e 
mony, and its inseparable connections, have I had the least 
shadow of misgiving as to its truthfulness in its fundamental 
principles, and its stability and final triumph, as the work of 
God. It is evident, also, that this work before its close must 
present the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, and some proph- 
ecies of the book of Revelation. And to whatever degree I 
may have persuaded myself that this cause might have been so 
far developed without this feature which we call the gift of 
prophecy, it was only to look for something of the kind to ap- 
pear in the future ; for without this, it would lack one of the 
tests of being the work of the last generation. 

Adventist Research 

<- 108 — 

This was not the phase of the question, however, with which 
we had to deal. For here was a manifestation which had been 
interwoven with this cause from its very commencement; and 
the idea of separating this feature from it now, in the present 
stage of the work, is very different from the question of how 
things might have been if no such feature had yet been con- 
nected with it. A little reflection is sufficient to 6how that the 
message, and this which purports to be one of the gifts of the 
Spirit which has accompanied it, cannot be separated. 

Well, then, says one, the absurdity of this part of the work 
is sufficient to overthrow the other. To which I reply, No; 
for the strength of the other part is sufficient to hold a person 
from giving up this. And this has been the position I have oc- 
cupied. And so whatever doubts and perplexities I have had, 
I have in reality come just as near giving up the visions as I 
have of surrendering other parts of the message from which 
this could not be separated, and respecting which I have never 
had a misgiving. 

It has never seemed to me the part of wisdom to fix the mind 
upon any one point to the exclusion of all the rest, and let a 
difficulty there distract the view from everything else, and over- 
ride every other consideration, and then because everything 
was not clear right at that point, to make an impulsive and 
rash plunge which would lead to the surrender of other points 
which one did not anticipate, and which he did not desire to 
surrender. It has seemed to me the better way to consider the 
question in all its bearings, note the effects which would be 
produced, take in the consequences, and not make a move till 
one was prepared to accept the results which it was foreseen 
would probably or inevitably follow. Upon this principle I 
have tried to act. And I have never seen the time when I was 
willing to accept the results of a denial of the position and 
calling of sister White in connection with this cause, and hence 
have never seen the time when I have said by word of mouth, 
or come to a decision in my own heart, that her visions were 
not the operation of the Spirit of God. 

Of admonitions and reproofs I have needed my full share; 
and whenever anything of this nature has come which I could 
not understand, or circumstances have arisen which seemed in- 
explicable, I have been content to wait, knowing that the foun- 
dation of God standeth sure, to see what solution of the diffi- 
culties a little time would accomplish. The beautiful sentiment 
of the hymn has often come to my mind both as a caution and a 
prophecy: — 

" Soon shall oar doubts and fears 
All yield to Thy control; 
Thy tender mercies shall Illume 
The midnight of the soul. 1 ' 

Digitized by the Center 

— 109 — 

A general in battle does not despair of his army while the 
center stands firm. The wings may waver; there may be some 
confusion on the outskirts; but while the center holds, the bat- 
tle is not lost. So with the present truth ; so long as the main 
pillars remain unshaken, it is folly to leave the building as if it 
was about to fall. 

Some of our brethren, I understand, who do not indorse the 
visions, knowing that I have questioned the arguments based 
on some scriptures in their behalf (only one or two, however) 
have thought me hypocritical because I did not come out and 
controvert in the Review what I considered the wrong applica- 
tion. The answer, in general, will be found in the principles 
stated above. I wish to see how a question is to be settled as a 
whole, before entering upon an aimless agitation of any of its 
parts, or an effort to sow doubt or distrust thereon. If the 
time should ever come when I could not sincerely and joyfully 
entertain and seek to maintain, the views of this people, and I 
should chance then to have a position upon the paper, their 
proper representatives would be notified at once to seek some one 
to manage their organ who could do so in harmony with their 
views. And if any one supposes that I would, under these circum- 
stances, take advantage of my position to publish views contrary 
to the established faith of the body, or calculated to throw 
doubt or confusion upon any of their cherished points of faith, 
they greatly mistake my estimate of what would be honest or 
honorable. Whatever I should have to say in that direction, 
would be said only by the permission of those authorized to 
grant it, or through some channel provided for the purpose. 

Relative to my present position, I can say that everything 
seems clear and satisfactory to my own mind. I do not know 
that I could make it appear so to others, though I should be 
willing to try under proper circumstances; but my convictions, 
so far as my own case is concerned, are of course sufficient. I 
do not anticipate any severer tests in time to come than have 
already been met and surmounted. Hence I consider myself 
now more firmly established than ever before In reference to 
every feature of this work. I do not, of course, presume to say 
what further experiences and discipline may be necessary to test 
the sincerity of my profession and the strength of my devotion 
to what I believe to be the cause of God. But my steps are on- 
ward with a firm trust for grace sufficient for my day, and for a 
way of escape on the right side of the slough of despond, out of 
every supposable period of temptation and trial. 

The reader will pardon this lengthy, and to me distasteful, 
allusion to my own personal matters. I have made it for rea- 
sons stated at the beginning. Uriah Smith. 

ventist Research 

— 110 — 


We refer to the attitude the various churches have assumed 
relative to Eld. Canright since he has left us and commenced 
his war upon us. These churches in popular parlance seem to 
have "pooled their Issues " and given a new illustration of the 
old political phrase, " Anything to beat Grant." Methodists, 
Baptists, Disciples, first-day Adventists, doctors of divinity, 
here and there, feel wondrously happy in welcoming to their 
folds this Adventist of twenty-eight years' standing; ordain 
him in a few weeks over a church, inviting him here and there 
to preach in their pulpits, furnishing him generous space in 
the columns of their religious papers to 11 expose Adventism," 
etc., etc. 

A large experience in Adventism does not seem to hurt a 
man very much if he will only leave it, and come over and 
preach for them. They class us with all kinds of fanatics in 
their public attacks upon us; but we have before noticed that 
they are wonderfully glad to get any of us into their churches 
if we will only come over to them. Would they do this so 
quickly should a person leave the Mormons, Spiritualists, or 
others with whom they are kind enough to class us? Would 
they have a reformed spiritual medium over a church, occupy- 
ing the pulpit in a few weeks after he had left them ? or a 
Mormon elder ? How is this ? 

Again, they do not seem to be wonderfully particular either 
whether a man believes with them even on cardinal and very 
important points in their system of theology, if he will only 
leave the Adventists, and go for them hard enough. For in- 
stance, take the case of Eld. Canright himself. All of his old 
friends knew full well if there was any doctrine of the Ad- 
vent faith upon which he delighted to write and speak, it was 
the sleep of the dead and the total destruction of the wicked. 
If there was anything he felt happy in flaying alive it was 
the doctrine of endless misery, the folly of the idea of going 
to heaven at death, and the monstrous doctrines which grow 
out of the heathen notion of the immortality of the soul. 
Here he was in his element. We can furnish our orthodox 
brethren who now love the Elder so much, some hundreds of 
pages from his pen which will no doubt edify them greatly 
on these subjects. 

We feel warranted in believing that they have taken the 
Elder in, and made him a pastor, and fully indorsed him as a 

Digitized by the Center 

— ill — 

minister, and he still holding to these terrible u infidel notions," 
as they sometimes characterize these views. The reason why 
we so believe is that in all his raid upon us and our doc- 
trines, ridiculing and opposing, we recollect not a word from 
his pen intimating that we are wrong concerning our views 
of the soul and the dead. We are also informed that in his 
examination before the council of Baptist ministers, just be- 
fore his re-ordination at Otsego last spring, when those points 
of faith involving the soul question came up, the Elder was 
meekly modest in his statements, and "wanted time" to 
further examine the subject before he felt inclined to state 
his positions. And also that he was accorded a private ex- 
amination by the council of divines on this question, the pro- 
ceedings and result of which we have never been able to learn. 
We therefore conclude that the Elder has put a padlock upon 
that mouth which so freely speaks on other subjects, and 
agrees to keep these vi6ws to himself. He probably does not 
consider them "so important" as of yore. In view of this 
state of things, we feel ourselves fully justified in concluding 
that here are a few "rags" of Adventism which the Elder 
has not yet given up. 

The family of doctrines growing out of the immortality of 
the soul is a large one, and one, also, which is considered of 
vast importance in the orthodox platform of faith. Indeed, 
we have often known divines of that persuasion, when op- 
posing us, plainly to state that they considered our views of 
the non-immortality of the soul far more "infidel" and dan- 
gerous than our views of the Sabbath. Yet now that the Elder 
will oppose Adventism, he is taken into full communion at 
once, granted large range, lauded in their papers, made a full- 
fledged pastor in a few weeks, and made much of in many 
ways. What a beautiful consistency do we see here on both 
8ides ! They take him in, ignoring one of their most impor- 
tant doctrines, intrusting the sheep of their fold to one holding 
heretical views, which they have ever considered exceedingly 
dangerous, while he padlocks his mouth on a doctrine which 
f or a quarter of a century he has considered a matter of vast 
importance, leaving the people under his charge, the respon- 
sibility of whose souls is intrusted to his keeping, ignorant 
of a most important Bible truth. " So they wrap it up." But 
they can join hands in making a raid on the Adventists, even 
w Pilate and Herod could settle then- quarrels and unite their 
interests when the Saviour of the world was being persecuted, 
"0 consistency, thou art a jewel I " o. L b. 

^Adventist Research 

— 112 — 


That system of belief which we denominate "the present 
truth, " possesses this peculiar feature, that it will not mix 
with anything else. It is a sharp, clean-cut, decisive doctrine. 
It admits of no halving, copartnership, or compromise. No 
system of heretical belief or non-belief can be found which 
has grown up out of its tenets, having them for a foundation. 
If a person holding these doctrines wishes to be anything 
else, he has first to turn square about and renounce these 

To illustrate: If we believed in the immortality of the soul, 
and should then be taken in the snare of Spiritualism, we 
might plead that our second position was the logical result of 
the first; for the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is the 
very foundation of Spiritualism ; if we were keeping Sunday, 
and then should turn Roman Catholic, we might plead that, 
having followed tradition in the Sunday festival as of equal 
authority with the word of God, we are logically bound to 
follow it on all other questions, which would compel us to ac- 
cept the whole quagmire of popish superstitions and festivals. 
But the " present truth " presents no such sequence. It can- 
not be charged with having a tendency to carry its adherents 
forward into any form of error; for any change from this 
comes by renunciation, not by evolution. 

With quite a flourish of trumpets it is being represented at 
the present time that Adventism is ruining a great many peo- 
ple. But how are they being ruined by it ?— Oh I by their giving 
it up!— just as it is said that pins save a great many people's 
lives by their not swallowing them. The trouble is, they 
do n't stick to it; if they did, they would not be ruined. The 
names of thirty-six ministers, we are told, can be produced, 
who have once preached the Seventh-day Adventist faith, and 
either been ruined by it, or else gave it up for Spiritualism, 
Universalism, atheism, infidelity, etc. That is it exactly. 
"They gave It up." They did not build themselves up on 
this foundation into infidelity, Spiritualism, atheism, etc., and 
they were not ruined by it while they adhered to it It can- 
not then be consistently charged that Adventism has a tend- 
ency to lead men into these errors. But why have so many 
given it up ? On this point we do not wish to pass judgment 
on any one, or to impugn any one's motives. It will be sufficient 
to say that the subsequent lives of a majority of these have 

— 113 — 

testified that It was because the way was too strait, and 
they were unwilling to live up to the standard which this 
work presents. But the standard here is certainly no higher 
than that erected for us in the word of God itself. 

And how long a time has it taken to develop this imposing 
array of thirty-six ministers who have turned away from this 
faith ?— Forty-two years, or since 1845, when the first minister 
embraced it And how does our ministry stand at the present 
time?— Including licentiates, most of whom are in the field as 
active laborers, they now number 379. Thus where one has 
given it up, ten have stepped in to take his place. At this 
rate the ranks bid quite fair to be kept full. u. s. 


To those who are acquainted with the reasons upon which 
8. D. Adventists base their views of the Sabbath, nothing would 
be necessary to be said under this head. But to those who may 
not be so familiar with these reasons, and who may cherish a 
candid, inquiring spirit in reference to our views, a few words 
may be in place. In a brief article we can touch upon only a 
few general principles, but enough, we trust, to show the nature 
of the ground we occupy. 

The best point of attack upon the Sabbath question, our op- 
ponents are coming to think, is the position we hold in reference 
to the distinction between "laws*which are called moral," and 
those which are of a ceremonial and remedial nature. Hence 
this is now prominently set forth as the chief point of attack. 
They well understand that if this distinction can be broken 
down, everything is thrown into confusion, and in the general 
chaos they can very plausibly work in the abolition of the Sab- 
bath, which is the point they want to gain. Hence Eld. C. 
labors to show that in the days of Moses, all the law which the 
most advanced religious people on the earth had any knowledge 
of, either human or divine, was "an entire system," a "law 
taken in all its parts," and that it M was a burdensome system," 
a w yoke of bondage," a 11 schcol-mastei designed only to lead us 
to Christ;" that it was M against us and contrary to us," and 
was therefore " nailed to the cross." 

If there was but one law, these conclusions would naturally 
follow. All was nailed to the cross ; and the Sabbath with all 
the rest went by the board. But if this is so, then there are 
some of the most wretched contradictions to be found in the 
Bible, that can be found in any book on earth. And funda- 
mental distinctions that exist in the very nature of things must 
be strangely ignored. 


Adventist Research 

— 114 — 

Let us see. The apostle John says: " Whosoever committeth 
sin, worketh lawlessness; for sin is lawlessness ;" very properly 
rendered in our version, " Whosoever committeth sin, transgress- 
eth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." 
This is good New Testament doctrine, written some sixty years 
after the time when it is claimed by some that all law was done 
away, and men had only the gospel. To the same import are 
the declarations of the apostle Paul to the Romans, that by the 
law is the knowledge of sin (3: 20) ; that where no law is there 
is no transgression (4: 15) ; and that sin is not imputed when 
there is no law (5 : 13) ; and he says again, " I had not known 
sin but by the law " (7:7). 

These declarations lay down a fundamental principle on this 
subject. They show that the field covered by sin, is covered by 
something else called the law; that this is subject to the same 
limitations; that there is a set of regulations, a code of morals, 
the neglect or violation of any part of which by any morally re- 
sponsible being at any time, in any place, aud under any cir- 
cumstances, is " sin " ; and that this by itself, and independent of 
everything else, is a "law." 

This being acknowledged (and every one must admit it), the 
distinction between laws is acknowledged, for there certainly are 
other rules and regulations the neglect or violation of which is 
not held as the evidence and test of sin. For instance, Paul 
says that "by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and 
death by sin." Adam then violated that law the transgression 
of which John says is sin. What was Adam's sin?— It was in 
disobeying God in reference to the restrictions of the forbidden 
tree, an act which involved a violation of the first and last, 
third, fifth, and sixth principles of the decalogue, at least. 
Adam could not in his palmiest days violate any one of these 
without becoming a 6inner. But while he stood in his inno- 
cency it was no sin in him that he was not baptized, no sin in 
him that he did not pay tithes, no sin in him that he did not 
celebrate the Lord's supper, and no sin in him that he did not 
present offerings and oblations to the Lord. But afterward 
there were laws and regulations given touching all these points. 
But these could not belong to that system by which is the 
knowledge of sin. Even to-day the ordinances of the gospel 
are not appealed to in the cases of worldly men to show that 
they are sinners. If we are told that a certain man is a sinneT, 
and we ask why, the answer is not, Beaause he is not baptized 
or Because he does not partake of the Lord's supper, or Because 
he does not contribute to the support of the gospel ; but it is 
always Because he has transgressed some one or more of the 
principles of the decalogue. 

Any view of this subject must be only a partial and one- 
sided view which does not go back to the beginning and take 

Digitized by the Center 

— 115 — 

up first principles. When God placed Adam in Eden, we have 
no reason to suppose that he designed that he should ever sin; 
and if he never had sinned, he would have been under obliga- 
tion to those laws only which were necessary to regulate his rela- 
tion to God and to his fellow-beings. But this is just the field 
covered by the decalogue, no more, no less. And he would 
have had the Sabbath ; for that was given to him, as the record 
expressly states, before the fall, and was "sanctified," that is, 
placed under the sanctions of law. So if sin never had come 
into the world, all the world would have been keeping the Sab- 
bath to-day. Think of this. 

But when man sinned, a remedy was provided. Another law 
was instituted, the law of ceremonies and sacrifices, through 
which men might show their penitence and desire for forgive- 
ness. Now the law which shows sin, which existed before sin, 
which would have existed and governed the world if sin never 
had entered, cannot be the same as the law which owed its ex- 
istence to the presence of sin, and was designed as a remedy for 
sin. This distinction exists in the very nature of things, and 
the efforts of men to abolish it, and their stout words in deny- 
ing it, do not affect the case a particle. A man uses a knife 
carelessly and inflicts upon himself a severe wound. The sur- 
geon spreads on a plaster to mollify and restore it. Now men 
may assert as much as they please, that the knife and the 
plaster are the same; but we know, after they are through as 
well as we did before, that they are not. 

When God separated Israel unto himself, and committed his 
cause in the earth into their hands, he kept prominently before 
them the same distinction. His own law, the summary of 
moral principles, the primary and universal law which ante- 
dated the fall, he proclaimed with his own voice, wrote with 
his own finger on the tables of stone, and set it apart by itself 
in the ark in the most holy place of the sanctuary. Men may 
say that these marked and wonderful circumstances do not in- 
dicate any distinction between these laws and the laws given 
them to regulate their sacrifices and offerings. But such asser- 
tions amount to nothing; the distinction is there just the 
same. To those who attach great importance to mere verbal 
technicalities we may say, that these commandments by them- 
selves are called a law. Ex. 24: 12: " And the Lord said unto 
Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there, and I will 
give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which 
I have written." We know that the only words which God 
wrote at that time, so far as the record goes, were the "ten 
words" which he engraved upon the tables. 

This law was the first condition of the covenant which God 
made with Israel, and with reference to this the whole sanct- 
uary service was instituted and carried forward from day to 
day and from year to year. 

ventist Research 

— 116 — 

It was this law, in vindication of the perpetuity, honor, and 
majesty of which Christ gave his life. For he died because 
man had transgressed law, and the way back to salvation was not 
over broken-down barriers and the demolition of the law which 
had condemned him, but by means of a divine ransom which 
should satisfy its just claims. And we may be sure that he did 
not abolish by his death that law which his death was to vindi- 
cate and honor; and his death was to bear, and did bear, this 
very testimony to that law by which is the knowledge of 
sin, and the transgression of which is sin. But according to 
Eld. G, Christ nailed to the cross and abolished all law, and 
consequently the very law which condemned men as transgress- 
ors, and on account of which condemnation his life was given. 
A more unreasonable position, and a more superficial view of the 
plan of salvation it would be hard to find. 

That which was taken away, which ended at the cross, was 
simply that shadowy system which pointed to the cross, not the 
standard of morality which showed men to be sinners. For a 
time, that is during the period of the Mosaic dispensation, the 
two systems were together in the hands of one people. They 
had the Sabbath of the moral law, and they had the ceremonial 
law. Some of the services of the latter were to be performed 
on the Sabbath. Hence there was frequent mention of the two 
together. And now with a gravity which is amusing a long 
array of texts is presented in which they are mentioned together, 
as proof that they all belonged to one system. Such reasoning 
is too flimsy for serious consideration. 

It is with reference to the same law, the law which shows 
what sin is, and the transgression of which is sin, that Christ 
performs his priestly ministrations. It was with reference to 
this that the priests of the old dispensation ministered. But 
their ministry was a shadow of Christ's ministry. Heb. 8:5. 
Christ's miuistry is the reality, the substance, shadowed forth 
by theirs. Hence the law, that object with reference to which 
the shadow was performed, which we know was the law in the 
ark, must be the very same as that in the real ministry of this 
dispensation. Or, to put it in other language, the real ministry 
of Christ must be performed with reference to the same law in 
every particular, with reference to whieh the shadowy minis- 
tration of the Levitical priesthood was performed. If not, then 
their ministry was not a shadow of his, the two dispensations are 
rent asunder, and the whole arrangement of God's grace in both 
the Old arid New Testaments is thrown into chaos. Men ought 
to pause before taking a position involving such conclusions. 

The whole difficulty arises from confounding the two laws. 
But wben the distinction is admitted, and the perpetuity of the 
moral law is conceded, the Sabbath comes down with all the 

Digitized by the Center 

— 117 — 

rest unchanged. It is the same blessed, beneficent institution 
that It has ever been, and some are yet to be found with enough 
of the love of God in their hearts to accept and observe it, 
rather than to throw away the whole law of God in order to get 
rid of it, 8 

We have not space to go into an examination of this subject 
in the Interesting field of the New Testament. Its writers 
plainly show that one law is taken out of the way (Eph. 2: 15- 
Col. 2 : 14), the other remains (Matt. 5:17); one is made void 
by faith in Christ (Gal. 5: 2), the other is not (Rom. 3-31)« 
one will judge men in the last day (James 2 : 11, 12), the other is 
nailed to the cross, and no man is to be judged by it (Col. 2: 
16). So we might contrast them in many particulars from 
their own testimony. The reader is referred to a list of the 
contradictions involved in the New Testament, if there is but 

° n i»7L tbat 18 aU done away > aa found ln tfa e work 
entitled The Two Laws," published at the Review Office. 

U. B. 

i£ld. Ca.xmght has brought up as a grievance which pro- 
voked him to enter upon his present war upon the Advent- 
is^ the fact that Eld. Gage, at the close of a series of some 
half a dozen discourses against this people last summer, circu- 
lated a tract among his audience at the close of his meetings. 
The whole truth concerning the matter is simply this : The 
Elder had been speaking concerning Mrs. White. All Eld. 
Gage did was to give the audience still more upon the same 
subject, every word of which was from Eld. Canright's own 
pen. So practically Eld. Gage only gave the audience oppor- 
tunity to receive still another discourse from him on the sub- 
ject under consideration. We submit to the reader if it is 
becoming in Eld. C. to complain under such circumstances. 

e. i. b. 

ventist Research 

— 118 — 


It is often remarked that new converts are the most 
zealous. It is also true in general that apostates are the 
most bitter opponents. To this, however, there are not- 
able exceptions ; yet exceptions are never supposed to 
invalidate a rule. I have spent many years trying to 
induce people to embrace the present truth, and so hard 
have I labored to this end that I rejoice in every acces- 
sion to the church. Of course, I cannot but feel sad over 
every defection. So deeply do I realize the weakness 
of human nature that I can well appreciate the exhor- 
tation in Gal. 6 : 1. Even if we cannot restore the erring, 
we may be led to greater watchfulness by our efforts, 
not knowing where next the darts of the enemy may be 
aimed. It is not a strange idea that the faith of every 
one will be tested ; that a shaking time is before us in 
which, to use the words of Scripture on another subject, 
only that which cannot be shaken will remain. 

There lies before me an article by Eld. D. M. Canright, 
in which he assails the views held by Seventh-day Ad- 
ventists on the question, "Who changed the Sabbath?" 
I am not at all surprised that he tries to make strong as- 
sertions to uphold weak points. Self-confidence in assert- 
ing his positions was his prominent failing, and one 
which has, no doubt, had much to do in placing him 
where he now stands. He had an unfortunate pecul- 
iarity of setting himself up as a standard of both thought 
and action for all who came within the range of his in- 
fluence. But, most unfortunately for him, lie made him- 
self the standard for himself as well as for others, and he 
has not yet nearly reached the position to which such a 
following will lead him. 

He particularly assails us on the above question be- 
cause, he says, this lies at the foundation of the main 
point of our faith, that Sunday-keeping will yet become 
the mark of the beast. Of this he says: — 

My experience is that a belief of this as a fact induces more 
persona to give up Sunday for Saturday than all other argu- 
ments made by the Seventh-day people. Convince a man 
that Sunday-keeping is only a Catholic institution, a rival to 
the Lord's Sabbath, and hateful to God, and of course, if he 
has any conscience, he will keep it no longer. Every one of 
them accepts this as an historical fact in fulfillment of Dan. 
7 : 25. Indeed, this is the one main pillar of their whole system, 

Digitized by the Center 

— 119 — 

upon which all the rest depends. If their position on this is 
false, then their whole system of prophetic interpretation is also 
false, as they will readily admit. 

No, we will not readily admit any such thing. Nor 
would they who now so gladly publish his articles, be- 
cause they seem to do injury to Seventh-day Adventism, 
so cheerfully give them circulation, if they stopped to 
consider the consequences to which such unguarded 
declarations lead. It is a fact that the Bible Banner, and 
the World's Crisis, and other papers which publish his 
articles, fully agree witii us on our "whole system of 
prophetic interpretation;" but they deny the correctness 
of our application of a single symbol. And if we could 
become convinced that our interpretation of Rev. 13: 
11-17 is wrong, we should still insist that our whole sys- 
tem of prophetic interpretation is right. Ours is the "lit- 
eral, as opposed to the mystical system of prophetic inter- 
pretation. While these papers rest their whole advent 
faith upon this same system, they stand committed to the 
position that, if our application of this symbol of Rev. 
13:11-17, and of the mark of the beast which stands con- 
nected with it, is wrong, then the whole system of the 
literal interpretation of the prophecies is false! We do, 
indeed, claim that our application of this symbol is the 
logical result of following this system; but we will not 
be so ungenerous as to hold the papers to which we have 
referred, to the consequences of that which they have 
virtually indorsed, namely, if our interpretation of the 
two-horned beast and the mark of the beast is wrong, 
then the whole literal system of prophetic interpretation 
is also wrong. Our system of faith is largely based on 
our interpretation of this prophecy ; but we have never 
gone so far as to assert that if our faith on this point is 
wrong, then the whole literal system of prophetic inter- 
pretation is false. It has been reserved to Eld. Canright 
to take that position for us. But as he has copyrighted 
it, we may not be able to realize the full benefit of it! 

Having shown the importance of the question to our 
faith, he proceeds to combat our claim that the papacy 
changed the Sabbath to Sunday. On this he says:— 

It would seem that such a bold and radical position should 
be supported by the clearest and most abundant evidence. They 
claim it is an actual historical fact that at a certain time, about 
500 after Christ, the pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday. 
If this be so, of course they should be able to procure reliable 

Adventist Research 

— 120 — 

— 121 — 

historical proof for it, giving the time, place, manner, facts, and 
reasons for so remarkable an occurrence. I have before me two 
books written expressly to prove this assertion. They are, 
" Who Changed the Sabbath 3 " 24 pages, and u Marvel of Nations," 
282 pages. But the only proof offered is simply quotations 
from Catholic catechisms, which claim that their Church made 
the change. And this is all the historical proof they can pre- 
sent on this point ! Yes, for all that the Sabbatarian writers and 
scholars for the last 200 years have been able to find is just this 
and nothing more. Not one single historian in all the annals 
of the world has ever stated that the pope changed the Sabbath. 
For twenty-eight years I longed for such a testimony, but found 
it not. 

I have thus largely quoted, as this paragraph gives the 
complete substance of his whole article, that the reader 
may see exactly what is his claim. The paragraph af- 
fords much food for reflection, and opens before our 
view a large amount of false reasoning. 

1. We learn that for twenty-eight years he longed for 
what he considered evidence essential to establish the 
very foundation of the faith that he preached, "but 
found it not" 1 While this may or may not be hard on our 
faith, it is very discreditable to his experience in the 
ministry, considering that he was so strong and confident 
in his assertions that the faith he preached was fully and 
completely proved. His longing for twenty-eight years 
for proof which he could consider satisfactory shows 
that he was not as confident as he assumed to be. Is he 

2. He does not seem to realize that the question that 
should govern us on all points of duty is, What say the 
Scriptures? I have always claimed, and still claim, that 
proof of the real origin of the Sunday Sabbath is a sec- 
ondary matter, while it is admitted by very many of its 
most ardent and learned advocates that its origin cannot 
be traced to any requirement in the Scriptures. And 
whether they confess it or not, the fact remains, that it 
is not of Bible origin, plain to the sight of every one 
who reads his Bible with any care. A man, "if he has 
any conscience," will not wait to settle the question of 
its origin, if he has set before him the evidence that 
God's law requires the observance of the seventh day, 
and that the Bible is entirely silent in regard to any 
other day to be observed as a weekly Sabbath. 

8. He entirely evades the issue, instead of settling it, 

when he offers proof that the Christians met for wor- 
ship on the first day of the week in the days immediately 
following the apostles. Query: Did they observe it as a 
Sabbath, or day of rest from secular labor? Eld. Can- 
right knows very well that they did not. He knows also, 
if he has ever examined history on the subject, that in 
those very days Christians assembled for worship on 
the sixth day also, in commemoration of the death of the 
Lord, and that neither the first nor the sixth was held 
as a Sabbath till after the celebrated decree of Con- 
stantine for resting on the venerable day of the sun. 
After that time it was adopted by the Church of Rome, 
and made the "chief festival of the Church," because it 
was easier to reach the people if they kept the same day 
that was popularized by the emperor, and to which they 
were allied in their adoration of the sun. 

4. He surely cannot be so ignorant of history as to 
believe, though he affirms it, that the observance of the 
first day of the week as a day of worship was universal 
among Christians in "the days immediately following 
the apostles. " I am aware that room for a world of 
quibbling is opened under the expression, "a day of 
worship;" because in that manner may be brought in 
the custom of holding religious worship and thence re- 
pairing to their usual avocations on that day. But that 
would be but a cavil, for he is now considering the erec- 
tion of the first day as a Sabbath, and the fact that they 
met for worship on that day is not proof, inasmuch as the 
proof is clear that they did not rest from labor upon it. 
After the time of Constantine's decree, and after the 
Church of Rome had adopted it as the day of special ob- 
servance, and put the seventh day under its ban, there 
were many in the Eastern churches who still observed 
the seventh day, who resisted the usurpation of the Rom- 
ish Church ; and the anathemas of the council held at 
Laodicea were among the means of bringing them to 
submit to the change. 

5. Before presenting direct evidence on the question, 
I will say something on Eld. C.'s flourish over our not 
being able to give time, place, manner, facts, and rea- 
sons of the papacy's erecting the Sunday-Sabbath insti- 
tution. I propose to show that all this can be done, 
definitely and to a certainty. But I insist that it is not 
necessary to our position ; our faith may be fully and 
sufficiently established without doing half that he asks. 

Digitized by the Center 

Iventist Research 

— 122 — 

He will find himself by no means so well prepared to 
defend the Sunday-Sabbath as we are to assail it. Let us 
institute a few comparisons: — 

Suppose that I owe Eld. Canright a sum of money; in 
payment I offer him a bill which he claims is counterfeit. 
In proof he shows: (a.) that the detector gives a very ac- 
curate description of the genuine, but this does not re- 
semble it in a single feature. This he thinks ought to 
settle the matter, (b.) There is a notorious counterfeiter 
at hand, who has literally flooded the land with counter- 
feits ; and he has executed them so well that the major- 
ity prefer them to the genuine. Of course this emboldens 
him in his work, and he does not deny his occupation ; 
he rather boasts of his skill in counterfeiting. He comes 
forward and says that he made that bill ; he declares 
that it is one of the best that he ever made. He has even 
held it up as evidence of his great ability as a counter- 
feiter, (c.) Ever since it has been in circulation, there 
have been officers of the Government who pronounced 
it a counterfeit. It is further proved that its circulation 
was resisted by the people, but the counterfeiter got to- 
gether a company of his confederates, and they resolved 
to boycott, to waylay, to maltreat all those who would 
not receive it. And it is shown that these were the 
means by which it came to be regarded as of anv value, 
(d.) It is further shown that in all places where" he had 
the controlling influence, they abused and even put to 
death those who should be found in possession of the 
genuine. All this Eld. C. offers, to justify his refusal 
to accept my bill. 

But to this I make reply, that, (a.) we cannot take the 
word of the counterfeiter ; his testimony is ruled out. 
(b.) It is admitted that everything alleged against the 
counterfeiter is true, except as regards this particular 
bill, (c.) It has for so long a time been received as valu- 
able, that custom establishes the fact of its value. Evi- 
dences to the contrary are of no weight, (d.) But, as 
most decisive af all, I call upon Eld. C. to show the time, 
place, and manner in which this particular bill was made ; 
he must show the identical tools which were used, and 
he must plainly declare the facts and reasons which in- 
duced the counterfeiter to make this bill. I do not claim 
that all this can be done in regard to the other counter- 
feits ; it is enough that they stand condemned by the de- 
tector. But this is an exceptional case. In regard to 

Digitized by the Center 

this bill I say that he must either show all this, or accept 
the bill, or lose his debt. 

After all this array of 44 proofs, " it is just possible that 
Eld. Canright might prove so exacting as to still refuse 
to receive the bill. But every one will acknowledge that 
he would only be notional in so doing. It is so out of 
harmony with his claim in parallel cases! 

6. To show that I am correct in saying that his claim 
iu regard to this particular institution is exceptional and 
unreasonable, I now call upon him to show the origin of 
infant baptism. Let him declare to us the time, place, 
and manner in which it was instituted. I shall not ac- 
cept, as proof in the case, instances of its being practiced ; 
these are evidences of its existence, but not of its insti- 
tution or origin. Let him show the particular facts and 
reasons which first led to its practice, and when I 
prove that it was practiced in the days immediately fol- 
lowing the apostles, as I hereby offer to do, let him ac- 
cept it as a valid, Christian ordinance, or renounce the un- 
tenable ground upon which he stands. Korean he evade 
this by saying that it may be proved that they held meet- 
ings for worship on Sunday earlier than the time of the 
first mention of infant baptism, for meeting for worship 
on that day gives it no pre-eminence over the sixth day, 
on which also they held meetings ; and I offer to prove 
that infant baptism was practiced nearly two centuries 
before there was any observance of the first day, any 
rest from secular labor required upon it, or any church 
law or constitution for its observance. If he doubts my 
ability to do this, it can easily be tested. I am willing 
to be held to all my offers whenever he comes forward 
to give the counter evidence. 

7. Infant baptism does not stand alone antedating 
Sunday-keeping. With it we find sprinkling, first in 
connection with immersion and then as a substitute for 
Immersion, infant communion, consecrating water in 
baptism, belief in baptismal regeneration, and many 
other superstitions. Every one of these can plead the 
authority of the Fathers, antiquity, the days following 
the apostles, etc. And every one of them was consid- 
ered pious and Christian before there was any idea of 
piety connected with any manner of keeping Sunday. 
-And every one of them claimed, not the teachings of 
the apostles, but " apostolic traditions." 

8. Not to be tedious, I will notice just one point more : 

; • 

— 124 — 

Eld. C. lays great stress on finding that meetings were 
held on Sunday in the days immediately following the 
apostles, and long before the rise of the papal Church. 
But he cannot find any Sunday institution in those days. 
And if he could, what then ? Paul said the mystery of 
iniquity was already working in his day, and every true 
Protestant believes that the mystery of iniquity gave rise 
to that man of sin— the papacy. Can Eld. Canright 
point to a single act in the working of that mystery of 
iniquity in Paul's day, or in the days immediately follow- 
ing the apostles ? It was working then, and continued 
to work until the man of sin stood in full view. But 
will he undertake to specify a single act in its working 
in those days ? I confidently take this position, and re- 
spectfully ask any and all to show that it is not reason- 
able and just ; namely, that practice or institution in the 
church, not ordained by divine authority, not plainly 
proved in the Scriptures, which can be traced to the time 
nearest to the days of the apostles, has the strongest 
claim to stand first in the working of that mystery of 
iniquity 1 Paul also said that after his departing, griev- 
ous wolves should enter in among them, and of their own 
selves should men arise, speaking perverse things, etc. 
Admitted that a practice is proved to have existed im- 
mediately after the days of Peter and Paul, if it is not 
authorized by the Scriptures, it is identified as being 
among the perverse things brought in by grievous wolves, 
and is to be classed as the working of the mystery of 
iniquity, by which that man of sin was brought to view. 
It was his special delight to change the times and laws 
of the Most High, and to multiply man-made institutions, 
and to compel their observance as a part of Christianity. 

I might carry much further the comparison between 
Sunday-keeping and other innovations and superstitions 
which had their origin in the effort to amalgamate 
Christianity and paganism. Many of the Fathers had 
been pagans, not a few of them pagan philosophers, and 
these were not slow to assume the position of teachers, 
and to leave their fancies and vagaries on record as the 
faith of the church. But with all the warnings of the 
apostles, with all the exhortations to cling to the law and 
the testimony alone, to the Scriptures of truth, they who 
follow these false lights away from the words of life, 
are without excuse. I am well aware that there is a 
strong effort made in the churches to separate Sunday 

— 125 — 

from the other relics of pagan superstitions and human 
institutions ; but in opening the way to gratify Eld. 
Canright's long-standing desire to see proof that the 
papacy displaced the Sabbath of the Lord, and set up 
Sunday in its stead, I here state two propositions 

1. Among all the traditions and human innovations 
in the Christian church, there is none that can so clearly 
and positively be traced to paganism as the Sunday. 

2. Among all the institutions which have been foisted 
upon the church by the papal power, there is no one that 
is so clearly marked, so definitely outlined in its origin 
and enforcement, as the festival of the Sunday. 

I wish here to have it understood that I shall not take 
the time or the space to examine all the other traditions 
and superstitions that obtained a foot-hold in the church, 
and passed for Christian doctrines and ordinances, so as 
to draw the comparison and show which is the most dis- 
tinctively pagan and papal. I only take it upon me to 
fully and clearly show that the Sunday has its origin as 
a day of regard and observance in paganism and the 
papacy. If any wish to have the comparison more fully 
traced, and think that they can show that other traditions 
have a better right to the claim of such origin, I shall be 
willing to carry the investigation further, for, though I 
hope to satisfy every reasonable requirement and every 
candid mind, I do not propose to exhaust the proofs 
which are in reach. 

1. Is it a fact that the observance of Sunday as a day 
of rest from secular employment is distinctively and only 
of pagan origin ? 

To all true Protestants, who take "the Bible and the 
Bible alone," who do not believe that their Christian 
character can be correctly formed by any standard but 
that which God has revealed, who do not believe there 
is any obedience where there is no precept or require- 
ment,— to all such the plea of custom and tradition can 
have no weight. In regard to any custom, our inquiry 
is not, Did it exist ? but, By what authority did it exist ? 
We have little regard for what men have done ; that does 
not reach our consciences ; for that we go to history, and 
then we are often misinformed. We ask what tliey ought 
to have done, and to settle this we go to the Bible, and are 
never deceived. And none can be deceived in going 
there, unless its testimony is covered up with inference* 

Digitized by the Center 

Iventist Research 

— 126 — 

— 127 — 

and traditions. I wish the reader to bear in mind what 
justly belongs to the examination of duty in regard to 
laws and institutions. The only question admissible is, 
What does the commandment of God say ? Has it been 
as plainly amended or repealed as it was enacted ? If 
not, no amouut of tradition, custom, precedent, or rea- 
soning can set it aside. But we are constantly going 
beyond what can be reasonably asked of us, and proving 
that their traditions and customs are vain and their con- 
clusions unjust. 

In answering the question I have asked on the first 
proposition, I shall show tbat the authority, the name, 
and the sacredness of Sunday are entirely of pagan 

Every one who has read the debate between Campbell 
and Purcell must have been struck with Mr. Campbell's 
perfect familiarity with church history. The bishop ap- 
peared to be unusually fair for an advocate of "the 
church," but on one point he was either inclined to take 
unjust advantage, or Mr. Campbell excelled him in a 
knowledge of church history and the writings of the 
Fathers. Mr. Campbell was an advocate of Sunday- 
keeping; in his theology, Sunday was the Lord's day. 
But his learning often led him to make statements with 
which his theology was not in harmony. He was presi- 
dent of Bethany College, in Virginia, a denominational 
institution. Before a graduating class in the year 1848, 
he used the following language :— 

Was the first day set apart by public authority in the apos- 
tolic age ?— No. By whom was it set apart, and when By 
Constantine, who lived about the beginning of the fourth 

These words I copied from one of their journals pub- 
lished in Cincinnati, the lecture having been revised by 
Mr. Campbell himself before its publication. According 
to this, Constantine was the one — the first one— who set 
apart by authority the first day of the week. Constan- 
tine's Sunday decree was issued in 321. Dr. Heylyn, in 
his " History of the Sabbath," an extensive and reliable 
work, speaking of their holding meetings on Sunday, 
said : — 

For three hundred years there was neither law to bind them 
to it nor any rest from labor or from worldly business required 
upon it. 

In a subsequent section of the same part (2) of his 
work, he said : — 

Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly 
unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in 
a hundred years after Tertullian's time, there was no law nor 
constitution to restrain men from labor in thiB day, in the 
Christian churches. 

These testimonies are exactly in harmony with that of 
Mr. Campbell. He says that Constantine was the first 
to set apart the first day of the week. This wag ir 321 
Heylyn says there was no law for three hundred years. 
This would throw it forward to the time of Constantine. 
He also says it was a hundred years after Tertullian's 
time. This is not definite, nor is the time of Tertullian's 
death known. Authorities point to about 821, or not 
long after ; and this again points to the time of Constan- 

Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who, with Heylyn, was a Church 
of England writer, said : — 

The primitive Christians did all manner of work upon the 
Lord's day, even in the times of persecutions, when they were 
the strictest observers of all the divine commandments ; but in 
this they knew there was none; and therefore, when Constan- 
tine the emperor had made an edict against working on the 
Lord's day, yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or 
labors of the husbandmen whatsoever. 

The Encyclopedia Britannica says : — . 

It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the 
proper observance of Sunday; and who, according to Eusebius, 
appointed it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Ro- 
man Empire. 

These are a very few of the very many testimonies at 
hand which definitely state that the law of Constantine 
was the first law which set apart the first day of the week, 
or required rest from secular work on Sunday. More 
are not necessary to quote, from the fact that not a sin- 
gle authority can be produced that gives any other date 
or authority for the first Sunday law. If Eld. Canright 
takes exception to this statement, will he please to name 
a single historian who has ever given any other date, or 
any other authority ? Until he does at least this much— 
Until he shows that there is some difference of opinion, 
*ome disagreement among learned and reliable authors 

Digitized by the Center ^Kdventist Research 

— 128 — 

on the subject, I shall claim that this part of my proposi- 
tion is fully and sufficiently proved. The value of these 
testimonies is better appreciated by considering the fact 
that the witnesses were all friends and advocates of Sun- 

Next we will look for the origin of the name of the 
institution that Constantine set apart. It is found in the 
law itself, which is as follows :— 

Let all the judges and towns-people, and the occupation of 
all trades, rest upon the venerable day of the sun ; but let those 
who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty, at- 
tend to the business of agriculture; because it of ten happens 
that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines: 
lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the com- 
modities granted by Heaven. 

Thus in the first law for the observance of the day, it 
was designated the day of the sun. Not a very high or 
honorable title. How came this title to be given to it ? 
The Religious Encyclopedia says :— 

The ancient Saxons called it by this name, because upon it 
they worshiped the sun. 

According to this, the title originated in heathen idola- 
try. Do authorities agree upon this ?— Yes ; there is 
not an author in all the rounds of history or literature 
who dissents from this. Webster says :— 

The heathen nations in the north of Europe dedicated this 
day <b the sun, and hence their Christian descendants continue 
to call the day Sunday. 

Sunday was a name given by the heathen to the first day of 
the week, because it was the day on which they worshiped the 

This is from the Sunday-school Union Bible Diction- 
ary. Worcester, in his Dictionary, says :— 

Sunday; so named because anciently dedicated to the sun 
or its worship. 

These authors give an ancient origin to the name. 
Constantine was not the originator of the title which he 
gave to the day. Another historian, Morer, says : — 

It is not to be denied, but we borrow the name of this day 
from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the 
old Egyptians worshiped the sun, and as a standing memorial 
Of their veneration, dedicated this day to him. 

Digitized by the Center 

— 129 — 

Thus it is shown that the title that Constantine gave 
to the day in the first Sunday law, is an ancient one, 
and is entirely of heathen origin. From this statement, 
also, there is no dissent Eld. Canright cannot even get 
up any argument on these points. They are most tell- 
ing against all the inferences by which he has endeav- 
ored to uphold himself in his present position, but he is 
compelled to stand silent before them. 

Now having found that the first law for Sunday rest 
gave it a heaihen title, that the name is altogether of 
heathen origin, I proceed to inquire on what basis the 
law stood, that is, what was the nature of the edict— 
what the motive which actuated Constantine in giving 
this decree? This also can be settled to a certainty. 
Many interested religionists, with far more zeal than pi- 
ety or regard for the precepts of Jehovah, speak of Con- 
stantine's edict as a law for the Christian observance of 
the Lord's day. The very title that he gave it, the origin 
of that title, and the known use/ of the title in those 
times, disprove their assertion. Indeed, their knowl- 
edge of the origin of the title ought to cause them to 
blush when they make such assertions. But our proof is 
explicit on the point of the motive that gave rise to the 
first Sunday law. We are not straitened for testimonies 
in regard to this; they are so numerous that I cannot 
give a tithe of them. And their importance on the sub- 
ject under consideration cannot be overestimated. 

1. The fact that Constantine gave it the title by which 
it was known in pagan worship shows that it was not 
enforced as a Christian institution. 

2. It was dated March 7, 321, and on the next day, 
March 8, he issued a decree for the examination of the 
entrails of beasts, for the determining of portents, or for 
ascertaining the causes of public calamities. This was a 
heathen custom, and showed the heathenism and super- 
stition that swayed his mind at that time. 

8. At the time when these decrees were issued, he had 
made no profession of Christianity. Indeed, authorities 
have been quite willing to place the time of his professed 
conversion after the time when he presided over the 
Council of Nice, that it might be after the commission of 
many of his most perfidious and criminal acts. 

4. Historians freely testify that at and after the time 
of issuing his Sunday decree, he was a worshiper of 
Apollo, the sun-god, and to the close of his life, about 


'ventist Research 

— 130 — 

837, retained the title of Pontifex Maximus, or high 
priest of the heathen hierarchy, 

Milman, in the "History of Christianity/' b. 3, chap. 
1, says: — 

It is the day of the sun which is to be observed by the gen- 
eral veneration ; the courts were to be closed, and the noise and 
tumult of public business and legal litigation were no longer to 
violate the repose of the sacred day. But the believer in the 
new paganism, of which the solar worship was the characteristic, 
might acquiesce without scruple, in the sanctity of the first day 
of the week. 

This is well expressed. It was, indeed, a new phase 
of paganism, for, though the venerable day of the sun 
had long— very long— been venerated by them and their 
heathen ancestors, the idea of rest from worldly labor in 
its worship was entirely new. Gibbon also gives clear 
testimony on the character of Constantine as a sun-wor- 
shiper. In chapter 20 of "History of the Decline and 
Fall of the Roman Empire," he says:— 

The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed 
to the genius of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman my- 
thology ; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols 
of the god of light and poetry. . . . The altars of Apollo were 
crowned with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credu- 
lous multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was per- 
mitted to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their 
tutelary deity. . . . The sun was universally celebrated as the 
invincible guide and protector of Constantine. 

In a note on the same page is found the following:— 

The panegyric of EumeniuB which was pronounced a few 
months before the Italian war, abounds with the most unexcep- 
tionable evidence of the pagan superstition of Constantine, and 
of his particular veneration of Apollo, or the sun. 

Keightley, "History of Rome," speaking of Constan- 
tine at and after his profession of Christianity, says:— 

Constantine, however, was still a polytheist, and his principal 
object of worship was the sun-god, Apollo. At the same time, 
with the compliant spirit of polytheism, he held the God of the 
Christians and the Author of their faith in respect and rever- 

And Dr. Schaff testifies to exactly the same thing; in 
his "Church History," vol. 2, pp. 14, 15, he says:— 
At first Constantine, like his father, in the spirit of Neopla- 

— 131 — 

tonic syncretism of dying heathendom, reverenced all the gods 
as mysterious powers; especially Apollo, the god of the sun, to 
whom, in the year 308, he presented munificent gifts. Nay, so 
late as the year 321, he enjoined the regular consultation of the 
soothsayers in public misfortunes, according to ancient heathen 
usage ; even later, he placed his new residence, Byzantium, un- 
der the protection of the god of the martyrs, and the heathen god- 
dess of fortune; and down to the end of his life he retained the 
title and dignity of Pontifex Maximu6, or high priest of the 
heathen hierarchy. His coins bore on the one side the letters 
of the name of Christ, on the other 6ide the figure of the sun- 
god, and the inscrij. tion, Sol Invictus. 

On this same point in regard to Constantine's Chris- 
tianity after he professed it, the Religious Encyclopedia 
says: — 

The notion of conversion in the sense of a real acceptance 
of the new religion and a thorough rejection of the old, is in- 
consistent with the hesitating attitude in which he stood toward 
both. Much of this may indeed be due to motives of po- 
litical expediency, but there is a good deal that cannot be so ex- 
plained. Paganism must still have been an operative belief with 
the man who, almost down to the close of his life, retained so 
many pagan superstitions. He was at best only half heathen, 
half Christian, who could seek to combine the worship of Christ 
with the worship of Apollo, having the name of the one and the 
figure of the other impressed upon his coins, and ordaining the 
observance of Sunday under the name of dies soli* in his cele- 
brated decree of March, 321, though such a combination was 
far from uncommon in the first Christian centuries. Perhaps 
the most significant illustration of the ambiguity of his relig- 
ious position is furnished by the fact that in the same year in 
which he issued his Sunday decree, he gave orders that if light- 
ning struck the imperial palace, or any public building, the 
haruspices, according to ancient usage, should be consulted as 
to what it might signify, and a careful report of the answer 
should be drawn up for his use. 

. Mosheim, in "Historical Commentaries," p. 469, on 
the same point says: — 

How long Constantine retained these vague and undecided 
views of religion and religious worship, regarding the Christian 
religion as excellent, and salutary to the Roman state, yet not 
esteeming other religions, or those of inferior gods, as vain, per- 
nicious, and odious to God, ... it is difficult to determinate. 
Zosimus, as is well known, reports that Constantine did not 
openly profess Christianity, and show himself hostile to the 

Digitized by the Center 

jdventist Research 


— 132 — 

Romish sacred rites, until after the slaughter of his son Crlspns 
and his wife Fausta; which truly detestable crimes were per- 
petrated in the year 326. 

It cannot be disguised that, at the time of his issuing 
his Sunday decree, he was a pagan of no very high 
grade ; and his profession of Christianity never raised 
him much above the average pagan. The Encyclopedia 
Britannica gives a just estimate of his character. Speak- 
ing of the title of "The Great" being conferred upon 
him, it says : — 

Tested by character, indeed, he stands among the lowest of 
all those to whom the epithet has in ancient or modern times 
been applied. 

Dr. Schaff is justly esteemed as a man of extensive 
learning, and whose testimony regarding facts, no one 
would call in question. ,He is a theologian, and a warm 
friend of Sunday-keeping. But his theological relations 
have not prevented his giving the facts in regard to the 
first Sunday law. He says :— 

He enjoined the observance, or, rather, forbade the public 
desecration of, Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum or dies 
Domini, but under its own astrological or heathen title, dies 
solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as ap- 
plicable to the worshipers of Hercules, Apollo, or Mithras, as 
to the Christians. 

And more so, for it referred to heathen, and not at all 
to Christian worship. Again Dr. Schaff says :— 

He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as 
dies Domini, but as dies solis, in conformity to bis worship of 
Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular con- 
sultation of the Haruspex, 321. 

Concerning its claim to be considered a sacred day, it 
is not necessary to add much to what has already been 
said by the writers quoted. It would be presumption in 
the extreme to claim that God ever conferred any bless- 
ing or sanctification directly upon it By a system of 
false reasoning, they try to make out that the blessing 
that was conferred upon the seventh day, was trans- 
ferred to the first. But of course no scripture is ever 
quoted to justify the claim. The authorities here given 
say that it was dedicated to the sun ; and that dedication 

— 133 — 

is its only claim to sanctity. In perfect harmony with 
these, is the following from the Douay Catechism : — 

It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination, 
dies solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred. 

Now, as far as the first proposition is concerned, I 
think I have done all that I proposed : I have given such 
proofs, and such an abundance of them, that every can- 
did person must admit that it is clearly proved that the 
name, origin, authority, and sacredness of the Sunday 
institution are altogether and only pagan. Thus far 
there is not a Christian feature about it. With great 
confidence I approach the examination of the second 
question, for which the way is so well prepared. But 
in passing, I will say that I have carefully avoided giv- 
ing the testimony of any one who was committed in 
favor of Sabbath-keeping. Every author quoted was in 
favor of the Sunday. If ever anybody had a right to 
feel confident in their position, we surely have in regard 
to the assertion that the Sunday is, in every feature, a 
heathen institution. Our opposers themselves have 
strongly entrenched us in this position, however much 
the facts have grated on their feelings ; and so strongly 
have they fortified us in this position, that Eld. Canright, 
with all his assurance, will not attempt a denial — much 
less make any attempt to disprove it. 

2. Is the institution of Sunday, as a church festival, 
or day of Christian observance, of papal origin ? In 
other words, did the papacy set up the Sunday in the 
Church as a substitute for the Sabbath of the Lord ? 

It is easy to see where Eld. Canright fails to apprehend 
the truth on this point. I say fails to apprehend the 
truth, for I will not insist that he understands the truth 
on the subject. We know that his opportunities have 
been such that he might, yes, ought to have understood 
the subject ; but many who have known him long and 
well, have always thought that he was more fluent than 
deep. His failure no doubt lies right here : he does not 
appreciate the fact that almost everything that is attrib- 
uted to the Catholic Church, and can be traced to no 
other source, is more or less veiled in obscurity as to its 

In addition to my request for Eld. Canright to inform 
us when and where infant baptism originated, I invite 

Digitized by the Center 

\ventist Research 

— 134 — 

him to take up in order the institutions which are attrib- 
uted to the papacy, even by the church to which he 
now belongs, and show the precise or exact origin of 
each. Can he do it? Will he publicly make the at- 
tempt? For instance : Does he believe that the popes 
of Rome ever exercised civil power? He must answer 
in the affirmative. Will he then inform us when and 
where that power was conferred? or how they took that 
power? And if he cannot clearly and satisfactorily do 
that, will be therefore deny that they ever exercised that 
power? Or, will he— and be more consistent with him- 
self—assert that it must be of divine origin? A Catholic 
work now before me, "with the approbation of the 
Lord Bishop of Beverly" (Sadlier, New York), speaking 
of this, says:— 

And now we approach a most important topic — the rise of 
the temporal power of the popes. There is this which plainly 
marks it as the gradual, silent work of God. No one can 
point with precision and certainty to the precise time when it 
did rise. ... It grew as the trees grow from the soil. You 
cannot say when the acorn first bursts its shell and the lordly 
oak springs forth. Tell me whence the broad river draws its 
waters; tell me of all the streams, all the little rivulets and 
fountains that feed it, and I will then tell you every source 
which gave rise to the temporal sovereignty of the popes. 
Like everything natural, everything providential, we can only 
catch indications of it here and there, in the days of its infancy ; 
for I speak of times long before Charlemagne. 

Very few of the dogmas called papal can be traced to 
their origin. As seen above, the Catholics base their 
claim on this fact, that you cannot mark their origin; 
that being believed or practiced so early, they must have 
been derived from the apostles. This is exactly Eld. 
Canright's argument for Sunday. But Archbishop 
Whately drew an argument against them from this very 
fact; inasmuch as the Scriptures thoroughly furnish the 
man of God to all good works, if these dogmas were of 
divine institution, we could easily trace them to their 
divine origin— to the word of God. It matters not a 
whit how many or who kept Sunday, or how near to the 
time of the apostles it was kept Did God command it? 
do the Scriptures thoroughly furnish us with proofs for 
its observance? Lacking- this, it lacks everything that 
is required to make it a Christian ordinance. 

Digitized by the Center 

— 135 — 

I do not make these remarks because they apply to the 
Sunday ; I do not admit that it stands with the other 
papal institutions, veiled in even comparative obscurity. 
In this respect it has a prominence all its own— it can 
be traced to the papal power without the least shadow 
cast upon the evidence. I am confident that I can point 
out the two springs which, more than all others, gave 
rise to the baleful stream of temporal church power. 
But I have called attention to the obscurity of the origin 
of papal dogmas, solely to show that the advocates of 
Sunday are inconsistent and unreasonable in their claim; 
they ask for the Sunday what they cannot begin to give 
for other institutions which they freely admit are of 
papal origin. Fortunately, we can meet their most un- 
reasonable demand with full and sufficient proof, as I 
shall now show. 

The reader will bear witness that the origin of the 
Sunday as a day of rest from labor, has been clearly 
shown: it is only pagan. We have now to consider its 
authority as a church institution. I shall show that the 
papacy took it up from the hands of the emperors, 
strictly enforced its observance, and took most effective 
steps to suppress and utterly abolish the observance of 
the seventh-day Sabbath. Eld. Canright says that on 
this point we depend entirely on the Catechisms of the 
Catholic Church; that after 200 years of searching, 
Sabbath-keepers have not been able to find an item of re- 
liable history to prove our proposition and to justify our 
faith; that, after twenty-eight years of extensive re- 
search and earnest longing, he could not find a particle 
of proof that the Sunday-Sabbath is a child of the 
papacy. How extensive his research has been, and how 
conscientious and sincere he has been in his work of the 
ministry, and how ingenuous he is in his recent declara- 
tions, the reader must judge when the facts are laid 
before him. 

Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, was the first to speak of 
the transfer of the honors and duties of the Sabbath to 
Sunday. Let the reader carefully note this important 
fact. His words are as follows: — 

And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the 
Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day, as more 
appropriately belonging to it, because it has the precedence and 
is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath. 

idventist Research 

— 136 — 

I cannot give the room for all the notice that this first 
Sunday-Sabbath testimony deserves. The Lord, in his 
own institution, doubtless knew best to which day the 
duties were most appropriate, and which day was most 
honorable. See Isa. 58 : 13. In this transaction the 
pronoun "we" cuts a great figure— much greater 
than it will be able to maintain in the day when God 
shall bring every work into judgment on the authority 
of his commandments. Eccl. 12 : 13, 14 ; Rom. 2 : 12, 
16. Eusebius did not intend to disparage the transfer 
of Sabbath obligation; he was the obsequious flatterer 
of Constantine, and fully coincided with his decree in 
favor of the venerable day of the sun; and he never 
failed to speak in a manner to tickle the vanity of his 
royal patron. He spoke the exact truth in regard to 
the transfer. That the church took it up and united 
with the emperors in enforcing its observance, Dr. 
Heylyn, a historian of undisputed veracity and of un- 
bounded research, testifies thus:— 

And as the day of rest from labors, and restraint from busi- 
ness upon that day, it received its greatest strength from the 
supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power which to 
him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees of councils, 
the decretals of popes and orders of particular prelates, when 
the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed 
to them. 

Bearing in mind that it has been fully proved that the 
decree of Constantine was the first authority for Sunday 
rest, I ask if here is not a most important item of relia- 
ble history in proof of our position ? Of the times 
more than a century later than Constantine, Heylyn 
speaks thus of the building up of this institution 

The faithful, being united better than before, became more 
uniform in matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did 
agree together to give the Lord's day all the honors of an holy 
festival. Yet was not this done all at once, but by degrees- 
the fifth and sixth centuries being well-nigh spent before it 
came into that hight which hath since continued. The em- 
perors and the prelates in these times had the same affections; 
being earnest to advance this day above all other; and to the 
edicts of the one, and ecclesiastical constitutions of the other, 
it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions 
which it still enjoyeth. 

Digitized by the Center 

— 137 — 

One of the most effectual means of degrading the 
Sabbath, and of exalting the Sunday above it, in the 
feelings and practice of the people, was to make the 
Sabbath a fast-day, and to forbid fasting on the Sun- 
day. A rigidly enforced fast is always burdensome to 
any people ; and while the Sabbath was made a gloomy 
day to them, everything was done that could be, to make 
the Sunday a day of personal enjoyment. It is easy to 
tell which day would become the popular one, under 
such circumstances. This was the course pursued by 
the governors of the church, as all historians testify. It 
was a shrewd step in the direction of an entire change of 
the day of Sabbath observance. But it' was not by any 
one step that this change was brought about. Nor was 
it a brief work. As the historian says : It was not done all 
at once, but by degrees. Dr. Hase, in his "Church His- 
tory," thus testifies :— 

The Roman Church regarded Saturday as a fast-day in direct 
opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday re- 
mained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly busi- 
ness were avoided as much as possible, but the original com- 
mandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not 
then applied to that day. 

This practice, "in direct opposition to those who re- 
garded it as a Sabbath," was altogether of Rome. The 
Eastern churches long refused to comply with this order, 
as Dr. Heylyn testifies :— 

In this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end 
the Roman Church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a 
fast almost through all parts of the Western world. I say the 
Western world, and of that alone, the Eastern churches being 
so far from altering their ancient custom that in the sixth coun- 
cil of Constantinople, a. d. 692, they did admonish those of 
Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of censure. 

But Rome prevailed. It was decreed by the Council 
of Nice, and confirmed by Constantine, that "the pri- 
macy should remain with Rome;" and, though the 
Eastern churches long resisted the usurpations of the 
Roman bishops, this decree was never reversed, and the 
emperors were diligent to see that it was enforced. As 
long as the primacy of Rome was acknowledged, and 
maintained by the emperors, of course the faith promul- 
gated by Rome was "catholic," and all dissenters were 

ventist Research 

— 138 — 

heretics, to be punished with anathemas from the Church, 
and more immediate penalties by the emperors. The 
action of Justinian, who fully established the supremacy 
of the pope (John II. ), is proof as strong as any can re- 
quire, that the emperors stood at nothing that could 
make effective the Roman faith. The following is from 
Bower's "History of the Popes — 

While the Arian king was striving by the most just and 
equitable laws, to clear the church from all simony in the West, 
the Catholic emperor was employing the most unjust and un- 
christian means of clearing her from all heresies in the East, 
that of persecution, and the most cruel persecution any Chris- 
tian emperor had yet set on foot or countenanced. For by an 
edict which he issued to unite all men in one faith, whether 
Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, such as did not, in the space of 
three months, embrace and profess the Catholic faith, were 
declared infamous, and, as such, excluded from all employ- 
ments, both civil and military, rendered incapable of leaving 
anything by will, and their estates confiscated, whether real or 
personal. These were convincing arguments of the truth of 
the Catholic faith; but many, however, withstood them; and 
against such as did, the imperial edict was executed with the 
utmost rigor. Great numbers were driven from their habita- 
tions with their wives and children, stripped and naked. 

Such were the means by which people came to the 
unity of the faith in the early church. And it must 
be borne in mind that Justinian and other emperors did 
not declare any faith, — they simply enforced the faith 
which had been declared by the Catholic bishops and 
councils. And what was the declared faith and practice 
of the Catholic Church, in regard to the Sabbath and 
Sunday, in the time of this inhuman conduct of Justin 
ian ? Leo the Great was made pope a little less than a 
century before Justinian's execrable action in behalf of 
the Church. Of Leo, M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclo- 
pedia says :— 

Leo I., saint and pope, surnamed The Great, noted as the 
real founder of the papacy. 

He was the real founder of the papacy in this sense, 
that he did more than all his predecessors to subject all 
the churches to the authority of the Roman bishops ; 
and Bower represents his course, in the accomplishment 
of this purpose, as dishonorable, unscrupulous, utterly 
unworthy of any one bearing the name of Christian. 

Digitized by the Center 

— 139 — 

But it is enough that he put forth every effort to estab- 
lish the papacy, that he should be sainted ; it is this that 
covers all sins in their estimation. The character and 
position of Leo cannot but be appreciated in connection 
with the up-building of the Sunday institution. The 
Bibliotheca Sacra has an article on the subject of the 
change of the Sabbath, written by Rev. L. Coleman, 
author of "Ancient Christianity Exemplified." In this 
he speaks as follows : — 

The reasons for keeping the first day in preference to the 
seventh, have already been stated from Justin Martyr. They 
are more fully explained by Leo the Great, of the fifth cen- 
tury. On this day the world had its origin. On the same day, 
through the resurrection of Christ, death came to an end, and 
life began. It was upon this day also that the apostles were 
commissioned by the Lord to preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture, and to offer to all the world the blessings of salvation. 
On the same day came Christ into the midst of his disciples, 
and breathed upon them, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost. And 
finally upon this day the Holy Ghost was shed upon the apos- 
tles. So that we see as it were an ordinance from heaven evi- 
dently set before us, showing that on this day, on which all the 
gifts of God' 8 grace have been vouchsafed, we ought to cele- 
brate the solemnities of Christian worship. 

This is, indeed, a very important document — im- 
portant because of the position of the author; of the 
influence he exerted over the Church, which, as we here 
see, is not lost even to the present day; important as 
most fully explaining the reasons for keeping Sunday, 
not one of which the Scriptures ever noticed; important 
as an example, showing how an ordinance from heaven 
can be deduced from a papal " as it were." And if such 
respect is paid to these words of Leo the Great, pope, in 
this century, by a leading Protestant publication in 
America, what must have been their influence, their 
force, when Leo had supreme control over the faith of 
Christendom, and was backed by the authority of the 
emperors. In the entire absence of evidence from the 
Scriptures, in favor of the Sunday institution, what can 
we think of the knowledge or frankness of a man who 
will affirm that not an item of history can be produced 
to show that the papacy changed the Sabbath? 

As decisive as is this evidence, it is not the strongest 
that we have to offer. Historians, early and late, of all 
beliefs, have made much mention of the action of the 

dventist Research 

— 140 — 

Council of Laodicea, a. d. 364. Of this fact Eld. Can 
right is not ignorant. For charity's sake we could wish 
that he were. It is not pleasant to have to present that 
which convicts one who makes so large profession of 
both piety and knowledge of stating as a fact that which 
is so clearly and abundantly proved to be not true. 
M'Clintock and Strong make the following statement:— 

Chrysostom (a. d. 360) concludes one of his Homilies by 
dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary occupations. 
The Council of Laodicea (a. d. 364), however, enjoined Chris- 
tians to rest on the Lord's day. 

This puts it very mild indeed. In regard to the in- 
fluence of the decisions of this council, they say: — 

Sixty canons were published, which were accepted by the 
other churches. 

In their Bynopsis of these, they say: — 

Canon 29 forbids Christians' observing the Jewish Sabbath. 

In these two statements we get the whole truth. L 
It enjoined the observance of the first day of the week. 
2. It forbade the observance of the Sabbath. Let it be 
remembered that this council was held in less than half 
a century of the time when Constantine issued his first 
decree, for the first observance of the venerable day of 
the sun as a day of rest from labor. As the historian 
says, it was taken from the hands of the emperors by 
popes and councils, and rest enforced upon it as a Chris- 
tian festival. I am happy to be able to give the most 
definite information on the action of this council on this 
subject. I will here give three versions of this cele- 
brated canon. First the original, as given by the council 
itself, in Latin: — 

Quod non oport et Christianos Judaizare, et in Sabbato 
otiari, sed ipsos eo die operari: diem autem Dominicum 
preferentes otiari, si modo possint, ut Christianos. Quod si 
inventi fuerint Judaizantes sint anathema apud Christoa. 

The following is the German translation as given in 
Bishop Hefele's " History of the Councils:" — 

Dass die Christen nicht Judaisiren und am Sabbat nicht 
mussig sein, 6ondern an diesem Tage arbeiten sollen; den Tag 
des Herrn aber sollen sie besonders ehren und wenn moglich 

Digitized by the Center 

— 141 — 

an demselben nicht arbeiten, wenn sie aber als Judaisten 
erfunden, so sollen sie von Christus ausgeschlossen sein. 

The following is an English translation :— 

Christians ought not to Judaize, and to rest in the Sabbath, 
but to work in that day; but preferring the Lord's day, should 
rest, if possible, as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be 
found to Judaize, let them be accursed from Christ. 

There is no necessity that I should take another step 
to establish fully my propositions. It is abundantly 
proved, beyond all chance of denial, that the first law of 
any kind for resting from worldly labor on the first day 
of the week, was that of Constantine, who commanded 
only certain classes to rest upon it as the venerable day 
of the sun, in conformity with his worship of Apollo, 
the sun god. And in less than half a century after that 
time, a Catholic council enacts a canon which was ac- 
cepted as orthodox, which not only contains the first 
formal church law for the observance of the Sunday, but 
likewise forbids the observance of the seventh-day Sab- 
bath, under penalty of being accursed from Christ! 
Now, if any one can imagine what would be chano-in* 
the Sabbath, if this is not, I would be extremely happy 
to learn what it could be. In less than half a century 
after Constantine's first Sunday decree, we find this 
sweeping canon of the Council of Laodicea. In less 
than a century after the publication of this canon, Leo 
the Great gave his decision in the most emphatic terms 
that Christians ought to rest on the Sunday and not on 
the Sabbath. And in less than a century after Leo's 
decision, Justinian subjected all, whether Jews, Gentiles, 
or Christians, to the Catholic faith, of which the sub- 
stitution of the Sunday for the Sabbath was a prominent 
part, of which they had to make a public profession 
withm three months, under penalty of being declared 
infamous, excluded from all employments, rendered in- 
capable of leaving anything by will, and having their 
estates, of whatever nature, confiscated. 

Now, it being clearly shown that a part of the Cath- 
olic faith to which they were subjected, under such 
severe penalties, was, that people should not rest on the 
Sabbath, and that they should not work on the Sunday, 
is it a wonder that, under the canons of councils, the 
decisions of popes, given under penalty of being ac- 

^^ventist Research 

— 142 — 

cursed from Christ, and enforced by the edicts of 
emperors, under such penalties as were rigorously in- 
flicted by Justinian, — is it a wonder that the observance 
of Sunday became so prevalent throughout the empire ? 
Is it not rather a wonder that so many clung to the 
Sabbath of tho Lord, even in those perilous times, as 
history attests there did, in spite of the terrible perse- 
cutions to which they were subjected ? And is it not 
still more wonderful that Protestant ministers, with all 
these facts of history within their reach, will gravely 
point to this prevalence of Sunday-keeping as evidence 
of the united faith of the Christian church in favor of 
the first-day Sabbath ? And most wondrous of all, a 
minister comes forward and informs the public, in all 
apparent seriousness, that he has left the Sabbath of the 
fourth commandment for a more pious observance, 
because that after very extensive research for more than 
a score of years, he has learned that Sabbatarians have 
never been able to produce an item of reliable history to 
prove that the Catholic church changed the Sabbath ; 
that all we have to offer to prove or to defend our faith, 
is the evidence of the Catholic Catechism 1 Who can 
add a comment worthy of such an occasion as this ? I 
appeal to Eld. Canright himself, if it is a cause for a pro- 
fessed Protestant minister to glory that keeping the 
Sabbath was not then a success, considering the circum- 
stances under which Sabbath-keepers were placed by the 
papal authorities. 

While I have fully proved my proposition, I have pre- 
sented but a tithe of the evidence that is ready at my 
hand. And while Eld. Canright might not have been 
well acquainted with the true state of the case as the 
facts show it to be, he could hardly be ignorant of what 
Coleman said in reference to the Council of Laodicea. 
In "Ancient Christianity Exemplified," p. 531, he says: — 

Christian emperors confirmed and extended these decrees. 
All public shows, theatrical exhibitions, dancing, and amuse- 
ments, were strictly prohibited. Similar decrees were also 
passed by various councils, requiring a faithful attendance upon 
public worship, and a strict observance of the day, by solemn 
suspension of all secular pursuits, and abstinence from amuse- 
ments and vain recreations. The Council of Laodicea, canon 
29, about the same time forbade the observance of the Jewish 

Digitized by the 

— 143 — 

Coleman is an ardent advocate of Sunday, but he has 
presented the most incontestable proof of the truthful- 
ness of our position. And in these statements he has 
only spoken in harmony with all history, as Eld Can- 
right ought to know, and surely would know if he had 
searched the subject as diligently and thoroughly as be 
professes to have done. Let us mark well the words of 
Coleman. Speaking of the imperial decrees, he adds : 
"Similar decrees were also passed by various councils, 
requiring a faithful attendance upon public worship, and 
a strict observance of the day," etc. These were church 
laws, compelling the strict observance of Sunday, and 
faithful attendance upon public worship on that day, 
and holding an ecclesiastical curse over those who kept 
the Sabbath ; and this action was taken by various 
councils ; and yet all this, in the estimation of Eld. Can- 
right, does not amount to a single item of historical 
evidence that the Catholic Church put away the Sabbath 
of the Lord God, and elevated the Sunday of paganism 
in its stead. 

It is a historical fact that the edict of Constantine, 
and the imprecation of the Council of Laodicea, and the 
letter of Leo, and the cruelties of Justinian, and other 
like contemporaneous acts, all together were not suc- 
cessful in entirely overthrowing the observance of the 
Sabbath, and in making the observance of the Sunday 
universal. Against this almost overwhelming tide of 
worldly power and influence and wickedness, witnesses 
for God's downtrodden commandment were constantly 
rising up. This is made clear by the action of subse- 
quent councils, even if we had no other testimony. But 
for the present we will notice further the interesting 
period from Constantine to Justinian. 

Sylvester was bishop of Rome during most of the 
reign of Constantine. He decreed that Sunday should 
be called the Lord's day. But this could affect the 
Church of Rome only ; for the bishop of Rome had not 
then yet attained to any authority whatever above the 
other bishops. True, while the mystery of iniquity was 
working, and countless superstitions were being intro- 
duced, especially -in the African churches, this day was 
called the Lord's day, before the time of Sylvester ; but 
his order was the first authority for calling it so. And 
now, in considering another decree from Constantine, I 
wish to call especial attention to the frauds which have 

dventist Research 

— 144 — 

so long been practiced— and are still, not only among 
Catholics but Protestants as well— concerning the ap- 
plication of this title of Lord's day. Eusebius, Life of 
Constantine, says : — 

He enjoined on all the subjects of the Roman Empire to 
observe the Lord's day, as a day of rest. . . . And since his 
desire was to teach his whole army zealously to honor the 
Saviour's day which derives its name from light, and from the 
sun, he freely granted to those who were among them who were 
partakers of the divine faith, leisure for attendance on the 
services of the church of God, in order that they might be able, 
without impediment, to perform their religious worship. With 
regard to those who were yet ignorant of divine truth, he pro- 
vider' by a second statute that they should appear on each 
Lord's day on an open plain, near the city, and there, at a 
given signal, offer to God with one accord a prayer which they 
had previously learnt. 

It has not been my lot to see the decree concerning 
the prayer to be recited by his pagan soldiers ; though 
Eusebius gives the form of the prayer, which was well 
adapted to pagan soldiery ! Nor have I thought it of 
sufficient consequence to search for it, if indeed it exists. 
But the reader might easily infer from the words here 
quoted, that Constantine did really give some order in 
regard to the Sunday under the title of the Lord's day, 
though he confesses it derives its name from the sun. 
We shall see if he did. 

Reference has often been made by many authors to 
Constantine's edict concerning the emancipation of 
slaves on the Lord's day. Coleman says :— 

No sooner was Constantine established upon the throne, 
than he began to bestow special care upon the observance of 
the Lord's day. He required his armies to spend the day in 
devotional exercises. No courts of judicature were to be held 
on this day ; no suits or trials in law prosecuted ; but, at the 
same time, works of mercy, such as the emancipation of slaves, 
were declared lawful. 

These words of Coleman are not marked with that 
accuracy that should mark the words of a faithful his- 
torian. It was not as soon as he was established upon 
his throne that he began this work. His victory over 
Maxentius was in a. d. 312, and his first edict for a 
partial rest on the sun's day, was in 321. Requiring them 

Digitized by the Center I 

— 145 — 

to say a prayer, which is contained in a few lines, and 
contains not a single element of Christian faith, can 
hardly be said to be requiring them to spend the day in 
devotional exercises. Neither did he bestow "special 
care upon the observance of the Lord's day,"— no, not 
any care whatever. Every reader knows that his edict 
of March 7, 321, had no reference to the Lord's day, but 
to the venerable day of the sun, which had long been 
known and venerated as the day of the sun by the 
pagans. If he did indeed say anything in behalf of the 
Lord s day, the reader may suppose that it was in his 
second edict— that which referred to the emancipation of 
slaves. Again I say, We shall see. 

Of this decree I have a copy, together with an " inter- 
pretation " thereof, as found in the Justinian Code. I 
will give the interpretation first, as follows :— 

Interpretation : Quamvis sancta die Dominica omnes lites ac 
repetitiones quiescere jusserimus, emancipare tamen ac manu- 
mittere minime prohibemus, et de his rebus gesta, confici pari 
ordinatione permittimus. 

(Cod. Theod. Lib. H. Tit. Vm. de Feriis. Lex I. — Baron 
Annal. Tom m., p. 232.) 

"There !" exclaims the friend of Sunday ; u now we 
have it from the most unquestionable historical data, 
that Constantine did indeed issue a decree in favor of 
the Lord's day by name ; for this is his decree, coming 
to us through high authority. Here are the very words 
—sancta die Dominica, the Lord's holy day. This justifies 
all that Eusebius, Coleman, and the other numerous 
first-day writers, have said concerning Constantine." 

And is it, then, so great cause of rejoicing that Con- 
stantine, who was confessedly a pagan at that time, 
called the Sunday the Lord's day ? One might think 
that they had found a divine warrant for so calling it. 
But let us look further ; perhaps the facts may cut off 
even this morsel of consolation. Fortunately for the 
truth of history, the original edict of Constantine has 
been preserved. In the work which now lies before me, 
immediately before the interpretation copied above, is 
the edict itself, as follows :— 

Imp. Constantinus Aug. HelpidJo. 
Sicut indignissimum videbatur, diem Solis, venerationis Buae 
celebrem, altercantibus jurgiis et noxiis partium contentionibus 


•Adventist Research 

— 146 — 

occupari, eta gratum ac joeundum est, eo die, quae sunt max- 
ime votiva compleri. Atque ideo emaneipandi et manumit- 
tendi die f esto cuncti licentiam habeant, et super his rebus actus 
non prohibeantur. PP. I. V. Non Junii Caralis, Crispo IL et 
Constantino XL Coss. (A Chr. 321.) 

And thus it is, that that which, in the interpretation, 
and in the writings of "Christian historians" almost 
without number, is the "sacred Dominical day," is, in 
the original, the very plain, old-fashioned pagan, diem 
solis ! Not upon Baronius, nor the compiler of the Code, 
nor Justinian, nor altogether of the Dark Ages, does the 
responsibility of this deception rest most heavily ; but 
upon those professed Protestants of this enlightened 
age, who perpetuate the deception, and leave the word 
of God, and take their rule of faith and practice from 
the words of heathen emperors and the man of sin, the 
son of perdition. I will notice one more like instance. 

Morer was a writer of the Church of England. His 
book, "Dialogues on the Lord's Day," was written 
to vindicate their forms of church worship, especially 
the observance of Sunday. On page 257 he under- 
takes to show " the piety of all ages in this particular, 
and the care they had to have the Lord's day kept," by 
declaring ''the Canons, Decrees, Edicts, and Laws," in 
behalf of the day. He proceeds thus :— 

I begin with the Emperor Constantine, who, as soon as he 
had espoused the interest of Christianity, made it his par- 
ticular business that his subjects should reverence this Festival, 
and so he issued out this decree : " Let all Judges, Citizens, 
and Tradesmen rest upon the venerable Lord's day. But for 
such as live remote in the country," [etc.]. 

Perhaps the first edict of Constantine was not so well 
known in Morer's day as it is in ours, and his mutilation 
would not attract much notice. Dishonest as it mani- 
festly is, it is in perfect keeping with "the piety of all 
ages in this particular," for the Sunday-Sabbath is a 
fraud at best, and nothing but fraud can give it even the 
appearance of an institution entitled to our respect 

The occasion is worthy of a little reflection. All his- 
tory attests that Constantine was a devoted worshiper of 
Apollo, the sun god. Suppose that he had issued a de- 
cree directly in favor of the worship of Apollo, by that 
name, what would be thought of the historian who, 
suppressing the name of Apollo, should refer to this 

Digitized by the Center 

— 147 — 

decree as evidence that Constantine commanded the 
worship of the Lord, the true God ? One of two things 
we should have to conclude ; namely, that the historian 
could not distinguish between Apollo and the true God 
or else that he had perverted the facts to serve a pur- 
pose. But the advocates of Sunday have not scrupled 
to ascribe to Constantine the honor of bestowing 
special care upon the observance of the Lord's dav" 
when there is not in existence a word of evidence to 
justify the assertion ; his only care was for the venerable 
day of the sun -a heathen festival day. Yet not a few 
Protestant ministers in America gravely assert that Con- 
stantine made a law forbidding that desecration of the 
Christian Sabbath I They treat his language as thev do 
he words of Scripture. They affirm that John alluded 
to the first day of the week when he said, " I was in the 
Spirit on the Lord's day," though they have never even 
offered a particle of proof that John, or anybody else in 
his day thought of applying that title to the first dav of 
the week. J 

But the mutilation of history and of the edict of Con- 
stantine is but a small matter, compared to what the 
author of Sunday worship has led its advocates to do in 
its behalf. From hio heathen edict they have struck the 
venerable day of the sun, which, aside from its obiect 
would be no offense at all, and inserted the Lord's dav / 
m its stead. From the infinitely higher edict, the law of 
Jehovah himself, they have struck out both the name of 
the Lawgiver, and the subject of the law. They have 
cancelled the words, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of 
the Lord thy God," and substituted a day which never 
was, and cannot be, the Sabbath day of the Lord— a 
day upon which he did not rest from his work, which 
he never sanctified and blessed, and which he never 
commanded man to keep. 

It is due to the reader that I give a translation of Con- 
stantine s second Sunday edict, and of the interpretation 
Realizing that there are difficulties in these old Latin 
aocuments I procured a translation from the professors 
oi Base University. I will give their translation as thev 
gave it, in German :— J 

Wie es als hochst unwurdig erscheint, den Tag der Sonne, an 
sich feierhch und ehrwiirdig, zu Zankreden und leidigen Par- 
Wstreitigkeiten zu verwenden, so 1st es lieb und werth, an 
ajesem la£ das allerwunschenswertheste auszufuhren. Pes- 

f Adventist Research 

— 148- 

halb boU alien gestattet sein, an diesem festltchen Tage frei 
und los zu lassen, und niemand soli an Verhandlungen dartlber 
verhindert werden. 

Auslegung. Obgleich wir befohlen haben, dass am beiligen 
Herrntage alle Fragen urn mein und dein und sonstige Rechts- 
forderungen ruben sollen, verbieten wir docb keineswegs frei 
und los zu lassen und gestatten zugleicb durch diese Verord- 
nung die Verhandlungen hierilber in Ausfllhrung zu bringen. 

Aa it appears most unfitting to employ the day of the sun, 
in itself solemn and venerable, for controversies or noxious 
party strifes, so it is agreeable and fitting to carry out on this 
day that which is most of all desirable. Therefore all should 
be permitted ou this festival day to set free and let loose slaves, 
and nobody should be hindered in transactions pertaining 

Interpretation: Although we have commanded that on the 
holy day of the Lord all questions concerning mine and thine, 
and all other law claims should rest, we by no means forbid to 
set free and release slaves; and at the same time permit by this 
ordinance to carry out transactions pertaining thereto. 

But it has been assumed- with much confidence that 
the claim that the papacy changed the Sabbath is un- 
founded, even admitting that there was no law for rest- 
ing on Sunday before that of Constantine ; for the pa- 
pacy did not exist until after that law was made, and 
therefore the law antedated the papacy. 

As far as the Sunday-Sabbath is concerned, this as- 
sumption does not help it at all ; unless its friends would 
value it more highly from the hands of paganism than 
from the papacy. But the statement is open to two 
grave objections. It was Constantine himself that laid 
the foundation of the papacy. Bower minutely details 
the order of the hierarchy, its divisions, and the orders of 
its officers, as established by Constantine, making it an 
ecclesiastical government closely modeled after the civil. 
Although the exarchs and metropolitan bishops were 
over all the bishops in their dioceses and provinces, there 
was no one bishop over all. Yet it was declared by the 
Council of Nice that the primacy should rest in the 
bishop of Rome, in honor of that city. The title was 
then an empty one, except in the honor of the name ; 
but it became fruitful both of dignity and power. The 
bishop of Rome soon became the representative of the 
faith of the church. To be in harmony with Rome was 

Digitized by the Center^ 

— 149 — 

to be orthodox ; disagreement with Rome was heresy. 
But the bishop of Rome had to be governed by the 
councils. Constantine also made the bishop a civil 
magistrate, and allowed the Church to obtain possessions 
of lands. 

A certain writer well observed that Constantine would 
have proved himself a noble ruler if he had rested with 
the acts of toleration of Christianity; but he followed 
this up with acts of intolerance against all Christians 
but those who happened to enjoy his favor, who com- 
posed that party which could best serve the interests 
of the empire. This party, of course, was represented 
by the bishop of Rome ; for it would have been absurd 
to think of best serving the empire by conferring the 
primacy on any bishop but that of the imperial city. It 
was Constantine who convened the Council of Nice, 
where the famous creed of the Church was formed. 
Thus was laid the foundation of the papacy, or papal 

But the most decisive objection that I bring against the 
assumption herein noticed is, that Constantine did noth- 
ing whatever that can be construed into changing the 
Sabbath. This is important ground, upon which we are 
strongly fortified, as I propose to show. There is abso- 
lutely nothing to give the least color of plausibility to 
the assumption except the words of Eusebius, wherein 
he says that "we" have transferred the duties of the 
Sabbath to the Lord's day. But he gives us no hint 
whereby we may judge to whom the "we" refers ; nor 
does he produce a single act of anybody which can pos- 
sibly be construed into such a transfer. He speaks of 
Constantine's care for the Lord's day as evidence of his 
great interest in Christianity,— a declaration in which 
there is not a particle of truth. The "Encyclopedia 
Britannica" justly says of Eusebius : — 

He was undoubtedly more of a courtier than was becoming in 
a Christian bishop, and in his Life of Constantine has written 
an extravagant panegyric, rather than a biography, of the em- 

' Considering the character of Constantine, the adula- 
tions of Eusebius are anything but pleasing to the Chris- 
tian reader. Of the disposition of the bishops, who were 
intoxicated with the favors they received from the em- 
peror, to flatter him, Neander says : — 

Uventist Research 

— 150— 

One of them congratulated him, as constituted by God as 
ruler over all in the present world, and destined to reign with 
the Son of God in the world to come. 

"When such flatterers state what Constantine did in 
behalf of Christianity, we must ask to have the distinct 
actions set forth, and then we must judge by the actions, 
and not by the statements. Concerning the matter in 
question, the action is entirely wanting, and the state- 
ment is extravagant. The statement contains the first 
idea of the transfer of the duties of the Sabbath, but no 
evidence of the change. 

Now we will consider what Constantine did, and the 
bearing of those actions. 

1. It is proved that the law of Constantine was the 
first law enforcing rest on the Sunday ; and as Dr. Schaff 
says, it was made in accordance with his worship of 
Apollo, the sun god. 

2. It enforced rest on the judges, artisans, trades- 
people, etc., of the towns or cities. But it had no re- 
gard for classes,— no relation at all to the professors of 
Christianity. It was in no sense a law of, ot for, the 

3. It did not restrain from labor in the country ; and 
there, as in the cities, it had no regard for classes. In 
the towns it forbade all labor, whether by pagans or 
Christians. In the country it permitted all to labor, 
both pagans and Christians. 

4. Constantine, in his decrees, said not one word 
either for or against keeping the Sabbath of the Bible. 
To this he did not refer in any way. Let not the reader 
suppose that he may have spoken concerning this in 
some other decree. I have now on my table a compila- 
tion of all the imperial and kingly decrees concerning 
the Sunday, compiled directly from the Codes, given in 
the originals. But two decrees of this nature are set 
down to Constantine, and these are both given in this 
article. The second was made in June, 321, as an ex- 
planation or modification of the first. 

5. In the time of Constantine, Bishop Sylvester or- 
dained that Sunday should be called the Lord's day. 
But of labor or rest on that day, he did not speak. 

It is safe to affirm that there was nothing done in the 
time of Constantine, either by himself or any other, 
that has the least appearance of changing the Sabbath. 
It is said that he advised to have nothing in common 

with the Jews ; perhaps he did, but it is certain that he 
did not refer in any way to the Sabbath in any law. It 
would have been well for the church and for Chris- 
tianity if they had feared the Jews less, and refused to 
have anything in common with the pagans. 

Constantine died a. d. 337. The date assigned to the 
Council of Laodicea is a d. 364, 27 years later. The 
canons of this council were accepted by the churches 
(vide M'Clintock & Strong), and have always been con- 
sidered Catholic. This was a church assembly, an 
|ft ecclesiastical congress. Did it do anything that ap- 
peared like changing the Sabbath ?— It did. It required 
Christians to rest on the Lord's day, meaning Sunday, 
and forbade them resting on the Sabbath under penalty 
fe, of being accursed from Christ !— the severest penalty 
that they could pronounce. It peremptorily forbade the 
keeping of the Sabbath, and peremptorily required the 
keeping of the Sunday. If that council had had supreme 
power, and had avowed its intention to change the Sab- 
bath, what could it have done more than it did in this 
canon ? And if Eld. Canright yet denies that this was 
changing the Sabbath, will he please to frame a canon 
that would have had the effect to change the Sabbath, — 
an improvement on this canon 29 of Laodicea V I would 
very much like to see him make the attempt. Now, I 
claim that I have completely met his demand ; I have 
shown the time, the place, and the power that changed 
the Sabbath. And to make this matter sure, this voice 
of the Council of Laodicea has met a continual response 
from the Catholic Church in all ages, as it is easy to 
show. Charlemagne did more than any other emperor 
to make this part of the faith of the Church effective, 
and in his first decree he referred directly to this canon 
of the Council of Laodicea. 

Here I will notice that some capital has been made of 
the expression in this canon that they should rest on the 
Sunday as far as they were able, as if it was not per- 
emptory. This is but a thoughtless cavil ; for we must 
remember that there was a law of the empire that per- 
mitted labor in the country on Sunday, and over this law 
the council had no control. If Christians were under 
service in the country, to unbelieving masters, they could 
not rest from labor on the Sunday. The mandate was 
peremptory as far as the power of the Church could 

Digitized by the Center ft 

In this manner the matter stood for several centuries. 
The law of Constantine was the law of rest for the 
empire, and the canon of Laodicea the Sabbath law or 
law of rest for the Church ; though the Sunday did not 
for many centuries bear the name of the Sabbath. 

For the sake of brevity, I will pass over the decrees 
from the time of Constantine to that of Leo the Great. 
They were all in effect similiar to that of Constantine, 
taking notice of a few particulars as occasion seemed to 
require ; but none of them made any restriction on 
Sunday labor, they left it just where he left it. As for 
the Church, everything was done that "Christian em- 
perors," kings, popes, councils, synods, could do to uphold 
the canon of Laodicea, and add to the sanctity of the 
day of the sun. As to the canon itself, that could not be 
improved. It required them to "rest as Christians." 
All that was added, was to specify how Christians 
should spend the day. 

The letter of Pope Leo L, and the decree of Emperor 
Leo I., demand special notice because they have received 
so much attention from Christian writers. 

And first of Pope Leo. Justin Edwards, in his so- 
called " Sabbath Manual/' says : — 

Leo, Bishop of Rome, in behalf of the Church, about the year 
440, said, " We ordain, according to the true meaning of the 
Holy Ghost, and of the apostles as thereby directed, that on the 
sacred day, wherein our own integrity was restored, all do rest 
and cease from labor ; that neither husbandmen nor other 
person on that day put their hands to forbidden works," etc. 

Of this quotation I some time stood in doubt; for (1.) I 
knew that Justin Edwards was not a careful writer ; in 
this case he gave no reference to any authority, making 
himself responsible for the statement. (2.) The opening 
words were scarcely such as would be used by a bishop 
in that age, even one as assuming as Leo was. (3.) The 
bishop of Rome had no authority to forbid what the law 
of the empire permitted ; for the law of Constantine, 
permitting husbandmen to labor, was still the law of the 
empire. Against these reasons, I had no sufficient evi- 
dence that Leo I. was the author of these words. As 
Leo of Thrace came to the throne several years before 
Pope Leo died, it seemed reasonable that they had been 
confounded, and the words of Leo the emperor had 
passed for those of Leo the pope. And the probability 

Digitized by the Center J 

seemed strengthened by the fact that Morer gives part 
of these words substantially to the emperor, Leo I., in 
his decree of a. d. 469. 

But the difficulty was not thus solved ; for on ex- 
amining the decree of this emperor, these words were 
not found there ! Dr. Heylyn, more accurate than the 
others, has given the truth in the case. They are in a 
decree of Leo, surnamed The Philosopher, who came to 
the throne of Constantinople in a. d. 886. Therefore 
their date is four centuries and a half later than that as- 
signed to them by Justin Edwards 1 

At first glance it may be thought of not much impor- 
tance to identify the source of these words. But it is ; for 
thereby the fact is revealed that labor by husbandmen 
on Sunday was not forbidden in the fifth century, as 
they would have us believe who assign the words to the 
Leos of that century. The decree of Leo the Philoso- 
pher, about the end of the ninth century, was the first 
authority suspending country labor on Sunday in the 
Eastern empire. He reversed that part of Constantine's 
decree because, as he said, "The fruits of the earth do 
not so much depend on the diligence and pains of the 
men, as on the efficacy of the sun, and the blessing 
of God." 8 

Having cleared away this mist, we come to what the 
Leos of the fifth century really said. And first, Pope 
Leo the Great. This pope did not, as might be sup- 
posed from references often made to him, give two 
several orders concerning the Sunday. Nor was the 
Sunday itself the subject of his celebrated letter The 
subject was the conferring of holy orders; the time best 
adapted to this service, he decided was Sunday. He 
gave two reasons for this selection; the first is not 
noticed by those who quote him, though it is of equal 
interest with the other. And first, he says their minds 
were already solemnized by the fast of the Sabbath ; he 
cited Acts 13 : 3, to show that the apostolic practice was 
to set apart to sacred offices by fasting and prayer ; he 
required that, on such occasions, the usual Sabbath fast 
should continue until the evening or till the Sunday 
morning, that both the person to be ordained and those 
officiating might come to the service with sober minds. 
This is the first reason. The second is, that the Sunday 
itself is most fitting for such a service ; and here follow 
the words that I have copied in the quotation from 

dventist Research 


Coleman— only with this difference, that Coleman closes 
his quotation with the words, on this day "we ought to 
celebrate the solemnities of Christian worship," thus 
making it general, whereas the letter itself closes with 
reference, not to the solemnities of Christian worship in 
general, hut to the solemn services of ordinations. 

It is interesting to notice that in this celebrated letter 
Leo twice uses the word "Sabbath" as the day of 
fasting, and calls the following day Sunday. He does 
not call it the Lord's day. 

Dr. Schaff says: "The passage of Leo (Ep. IX., etc.) 
which Hessey has chosen as the motto for his work, 
is the most beautiful patristic expression concerning 
Sunday." It is a fact worthy of special notice, that the 
learned Hessey, in his "Bampton Lectures," preached 
before the University of Oxford, on "The Origin, His- 
tory, and Obligation of the Lord's Day," took his motto 
from the letter of Pope Leo I. This is another proof— 
and they are not few— that it is not an idle boast of the 
Catholics that the Sunday festival is that institution by 
which the Protestants do homage to the Catholic Church. 
American Protestant authors are not slow to render the 
same homage by quoting this letter as the best pres- 
entation of the reasons for keeping Sunday. But his 
reasons are all outside of any revelation given in the 
Scriptures. They are devised of the heart of man. How 
different is the case in regard to the Sabbath. Ask a 
Sabbath-keeper for the best presentation of the reasons 
for keeping the seventh day, and he will turn to the 
Bible, — to the commandment spoken by Jehovah him- 
self. It is " the holy of the Lord, honorable." 

This letter of Pope Leo was dated a. d. 445. The 
edict of Emperor Leo was dated 469. In some respects 
it was the most important that was given up to that 
time. But here I must digress to show the actual posi- 
tion of the emperors in relation to the Church, lest their 
edicts be supposed to have a secular aspect merely. 

Eusebius, in his "Life of Constantino," B. IV., ch. 24, 
says that in his hearing the emperor thus addressed a 
company of bishops : — 

You are bishops whose jurisdiction is within the Church ; I 
also am a bishop, ordained of God to overlook whatever is 
external to the Church. 

Digitized by the Center J 

— 155 — 

Constantine considered— or at least affected to con- 
sider — himself ordained of God to order matters per- 
taining to the Church, no less than the bishops them- 
selves. No doubt the flattery of such courtly bishops as 
Eusebius helped on the conceit. And it was for this 
reason that he called the Council of Nice, and took such 
a leading part in its deliberations, though personally he 
had never allied himself to Christianity. And this po- 
sition he bequeathed to his successors, — a position which 
the bishops were only too glad to accord to the emperors; 
for all the glory of the emperors, in this respect, tended 
to their own aggrandizement. It was greatly to their 
personal interest, and most of all to that of the bishop 
of Rome, to keep the Church in close union with the 
State. But in order to this, it was necessary to rec- 
ognize the right of the emperor to order matters in 
relation to the Church. For many centuries no general 
or important council was called except by the emperor, 
or with his consent. No pope could be ordained without 
his knowledge and consent. Hence the custom of calling 
them " Christian emperors ; " and their right to this title 
did not depend on their private characters, or their per- 
sonal relation to Christianity. 

The emperor, Leo L, who is called the Great, was not 
lacking in political sagacity, and thinking, no doubt, to 
add thereby to his dignity in the eyes of the people, he 
was crowned by the patriarch of Constantinople. This 
was the beginning of what proved to be one of the most 
dangerous prerogatives claimed by the Church. Of 
course, Leo was zealous for the advancement of the 
orthodox faith, and took decided ground in favor of the 
Sunday. Some have inferred, and for it they have only 
inference, that the decree of Leo was wider in its scope 
than those which had preceded, because of the severity 
of the penalty which was attached. His words were :— 

If any will presume to offend in the premises, if he be a 
military man, let him lose his commission; or if other, let his 
estate or goods be confiscated. 

He did not restrict that labor that was allowed by Con- 
stantine ; and Heylyn proves, by facts in the history of 
the times, that his decree largely referred to those things 
which should have been prohibited on every day of the 
week. And moreover, his edict did not refer to the 
Sunday alone ; for thus it ran : — 

Adventist Research 

— 156 — 

— 157 — 

It Is our will and pleasure that the holy days dedicated to 
the highest Majesty, should not be spent in sensual recreations, 
or otherwise profaned by suits of law, especially the Lord's 
day, which we decree to be a venerable day. 

Separating from the Pope and Emperor Leo, of the 
fifth century, all that has unjustly been assigned to 
them, we do not find in the letter of the one and the 
decree of the other, nearly as much as they are gen 
erally supposed to contain. Were it not that the letter 
of the pope has been so freely used as the most beau- 
tiful expression in behalf of Sunday, and offered as the 
best presentation of the reasons for keeping that day. 
there would be nothing of special interest in it. 

Having written thus much, and considering that the 
matter of Leo the Great has been so greatly misunder- 
stood, I think I could not do a better service to the 
reader in this connection, than to give him the benefit 
of a translation of this letter of Pope Leo. It is from 
an authorized and commended edition of the letters of 
the popes, in German. It is No. IX. of Leo's letters, 
and is in two chapters ; but the second chapter relates 
altogether to the mass, and that is of no interest in this 
discussion. It is as follows : — 

Leo, the Bishop, sends to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, 
Greeting : 

What great love in the Lord we cherish for your love, you 
can gather from this, that we wish to establish more firmly the 
beginning of your office, in order that nothing may be wanting 
to the perfection of your love, since, as we became convinced, 
the merits of spiritual grace attend you. The fatherly and 
brotherly conferring (of the office) must accordingly be most 
desirable to your holiness, and be so received by you, as you 
see it proceed from us. For we must be one in thought and 
action, in order to verify what we read (to wit), that we have 
one heart and one soul. 1 "For inasmuch as Peter received 
from the Lord the apostolic primacy, and since the Roman 
Church adheres to the institutions of this apostle, it is not to 
be supposed that his holy disciple Mark, who was the first to 
lead the Alexandrian church, shaped his institutions in accord- 
ance with other rules, for undoubtedly did the spirit of the dis- 
ciple and that of the master both draw from one and the same 
fount of grace, and the ordained could teach nothing else but 
what he received from him who ordained him." [7 Decret. ci. 

» Acts 4:32. 

C. XXIV. qu. I, c. 16.] We do not therefore suffer that we, 
who indeed profess the same faith in one body, should differ in 
anything from one another, nor that the institutions of the dis- 
ciples should be distinguished from those of the teacher. 

I Chaptek. On which day the consecration of priests and 
Levites w to beiield. 

That which therefore, as we know, has been observed by our 
fathers with a devoted care, we wish to know to be likewise 
cherished by you; namely, that the consecration of priests and 
Levites be not undertaken on any day indiscriminately, but that 
[for this purpose] after the Sabbath day, the beginning of that 
night be chosen in which the morning of the first day of the 
week begins to dawn, when the ones to be consecrated, fasting, 
will receive the holy consecration by those who [themselves 
have] fasted. But the rule will even then be observed, when 
the consecration will be given, under a continuation of the 
fasting of Saturday, on Sunday morning, from which time 
the beginning of the preceding night is not distant, which 
no doubt, as becomes evident from the Passah of the Lord, 
belongs to the day of the resurrection. [8 Decret cf. D. 
LXXV. c. 4.] For besides the authority of custom, which evi- 
dently springs from the teachings of the apostles, the Holy 
Scriptures 1 also state very plainly, that the apostles, at the time 
they sent Paul and Barnabas by command of the Holy Spirit to 
proclaim the gospel among the heathen, laid their hands upon 
them by fasting and prayer, in order that we might know with 
what devotion the one giving and the one receiving it must 
take care, lest a sacrament so rich in blessing should appear to 
be performed thoughtlessly. For this reason you will observe 
the apostolic institutions in a devout and commendable way, 
when you observe this rule in the ordination of priests, in the 
churches over which the Lord has made you overseer; namely, 
that the one to be ordained receives the consecration solely and 
only on the day of the resurrection of the Lord, which, as you 
know, begins from the evening of the Sabbath, and is made 
sacred by so many divine mysteries, that whatever of greater 
prominence was commanded by the Lord, took place on this 
exalted day. On this day the world had its beginning ; on it, 
through the resurrection of Christ, death found its end and 
life its beginning [9 Decret. cf. D. LXXV. c. 5]; on it the 
apostles received their commission from the Lord to proclaim 
the gospel to all nations, and to dispense to the entire world 
the sacrament of the regeneration. On it, as the holy evan- 
gelist John testifies, the Lord, after he had joined the assembled 
disciples by closed doors, breathed upon them and said: 1 4 Re- 

acts 18:3,3, 

Digitized by the Center f^Kmventist Research 

— 158 — 

ceive ye the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they are 
remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are 
retained." On this day, finally, came the Holy Spirit, which 
the Lord had promised to the apostles in order that we might 
recognize, as it were, inculcated and taught by a divine [heav- 
enly] rule, that we are to undertake on that day tj»e mysteries of 
the priestly consecration, on which all gifts and graces were 

How much has been drawn from this letter that is not 
justified by its words, the reader can judge for himself. 
Though it is made almost the gospel of Protestant Sun- 
day-keeping, it certainly was not written to prove that it 
is a day of general observance. 

I have already noticed that there was no specific law 
in the Eastern empire against Sunday labor in the coun- 
try, until the decree of Leo VI., called The Philosopher, 
near the close of the ninth century. I do not speak of 
the effect that may have resulted from the general en- 
forcement of the Catholic faith ; but only of Sunday 
law. In the West this work began with the third Coun- 
cil of Orleans, a. d. 538 ; and it is an interesting fact 
that this council, which was first to give a decision in 
favor of refraining from labor in the country on Sunday, 
gave as the reason that the people might attend the serv- 
ices of the church, and also proceeded to mitigate the 
rigors of the observance of the day which many had 
superstitiously thrown over it. But from this time for- 
ward there was a greater restraint placed upon Sunday 
labor, and the severity of the penalties was greatly in- 
creased. The emperors and kings, being the guardians 
and actual heads of the churches, were often most for- 
ward to advance the Sunday cause, granting even more 
than the church dignitaries had asked in the way of legal 
exactions ; but there was little modesty on either side 
in this respect, for the history of the enforcement of 
Sunday and of opposition to the Sabbath, is one of re- 
morseless cruelty, from the very time when the Council 
of Laodicea showed the true spirit of the papacy in its 
curse upon Sabbath-keepers. 

And it was not Sunday alone that was thus cared for ; 
"other festivals of the saints" were enforced with do 
less rigor than was Sunday, and they were justly classed 
together in imperial and church action. And they were 
so classed together by the Reformers. Coleman gives 
tfce following testimony to their faith in this respect 

Digitized by the 

— 159 — 

The Augsburg Confession classes the Lord's day under the 
same category as Easter, Whitsuntide, and the like; merely 
human ordinances. 

The Reformers were deeply versed in the history and 
literature of the church, and were well qualified to judge 
whether the Sunday Lord's day was an institution of the 
papacy. Speaking of the Puritan idea of a Christian 
Sabbath, Coleman further says : — 

The law of the Sabbath was indeed a religious principle, 
after which the Christian church had, for centuries, been darkly 
groping. Pious men of every age had felt the necessity for 
divine authority for sanctifying the day.— Anc. Ch. Exernp., 
p. 533. 

Yes, and as far as any divine authority for sanctifying 
the Sunday is concerned, the necessity is no less deeply 
felt at the present time. This is manifested by the 
straits into which they are brought to defend the day ; 
the contradictions which abound in the arguments of its 
advocates ; the frauds by which it has been popularized, 
which are indorsed even in this enlightened age. And 
this is a most striking confession from Coleman. It is 
strange indeed that the piety and erudition of almost 
fifteen centuries, from the time of the apostles to the 
rise of the Puritans, had not succeeded in discovering 
the law of the Sunday-Sabbath, if such a law existed by 
divine authority. 

The papacy is always best prepared to meet such 
emergencies, and this was met in its own peculiar way. 
In the year 1201 was produced the law, in the form of a 
letter sent down from heaven. Absurd as was this pre- 
tense, and ridiculous as was the law itself, it had more 
to do with establishing Sunday-keeping on a perma- 
nent basis in England and Scotland, than any other 
cause. And Protestant churches are eating the fruits of 
this shameful deception at the present time. 

And this law did not stand alone. Miracles, such as 
the papal Church always has on hand for times of need, 
were freely produced in the line of terrible calamities 
which befell those who neglected to obey this letter, in 
not keeping Sunday and the other festivals of the 
Church. But the want of truly divine, of scriptural, 
authority for keeping the Sunday-Sabbath, still remains. 

From this flood of falsehood and wickedness of 
worldly power, we turn, as has been said, with just sat- 

$ventist Research 

— 160 — 

isfaction to the record of the Sabbath of the Lord, and 
to the means of its proclamation. Its history is un- 
tainted by deception, unstained by crime. No contra- 
dictions, no subterfuges, are found in its advocates. 
Resting upon the broad and solid basis of the command- 
ment of God, it needs no emperors, no popes, no coun- 
cils, to add to its dignity, its sacredness, or its authority. 

Although I have noticed but a small part of the edicts, 
canons, exactions, and especially of the penalties, with 
which the history of Sunday abounds, I have done all 
that is necessary to meet my present purpose. I did 
not propose to give an extended view of these matters ; 
it is enough that I have furnished the most incontestable 
proof that the Catholic Church, and it alone, changed 
the Sabbath. And I will repeat what I affirmed, that 
of all the unscriptural institutions foisted upon the 
church, none is so distinctively papal as the Sunday- 
Sabbath,— the preceptive rest of the so-called Lord's day. 
No other institution of human origin can so clearly be 
traced to the papal power. If any one doubts this state- 
ment, I shall be pleased to see a comparison of evidences 
instituted. If this were not the case, — if other tradi- 
tional precepts could be more clearly traced to that 
source, — that would not invalidate a single point of my 
argument. Whatever may be said of other innovations, 
our position stands strong ; our proof is clear and well 
defined. The question, Who changed the Sabbath ? is 
sufficiently answered. 

And now I appeal to the reader ; of all the proofs 
presented, how much have I relied upon the Catholic 
Catechism ? Who that reads the mere culling of proofs 
that I have furnished, can give any credit to the state- 
ment, that Sabbatarians, in searching 200 years, have 
not been able to find an item of reliable history to prove 
their position, — that their sole reliance is the Catholic 
Catechisms ? I truly pity the man who has had the 
ability and the opportunity to read, who can find it in 
his heart to make such a reckless statement. 

It will be noticed that Eld. Canright, in his article, 
"Who changed the Sabbath?" entirely concealed from 
his readers the arguments and evidences which have 
been presented by the advocates of the Sabbath. And I 
ask him to give me the credit of following his example. 
All the testimonies that I have presented, all the decrees 
pr canons of councils, all the edicts of emperors, all his- 

Digitized by the Center £ 

— 161 — 

toxical statements, are from the pens of those who were 
not favorable to the Sabbath. And while I have giv<m 
but a small part of the evidence of this kind, what an 
array is presented ! How can the friends of Sunday 
withstand the facts and the evident conclusion? Any 
one can answer this question who has read Eld. Can- 
right's articles. It is no lack of charity to say— for it is 
only truth— that he has concealed the facts, denied or 
belittled the great and truthful, and magnified the in- 
significant and conjectural. His whole pretended argu- 
ment is the weakest kind of sophistry. Not a single sound 
principle of just reasoning is advanced ; not a single 
plain truth of the Bible is vindicated ; not a single com- 
prehensive view of history is taken, in all his argument 
I will draw this article to a close by giving a summary 
of the historical points compiled from a recently written 

The Sunday is not mentioned by this name in the Old Testa- 
ment, neither has the day under the name of the first day of 
the week in that book received any prominent place; and it 
was not appointed a rest day at all through any law before the 
year a. d. 321. The old name of the day, which was afterward 
christened, is the day of the sun; yet this name does not 
originate from the creation of the sun, since the sun was made 
on the fourth day of creation. 

At the dawn of creation it introduces the week, but the ac- 
count does not give it any higher rank than the other days. 
. . . Our Sunday meets us from the very beginning as a com- 
mon day. With the last day of the week, the seventh, it is 
Bomewhat different. Of this it is said with emphasis: " And 
on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made ; 
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he 
had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; 
because that in it he had rested from all his work which God 
created and made." 

The day of our Lord's resurrection is indeed a commemora- 
tive day, which will never be forgotten or passed by in his 
church ; but from this — as one may think — it does not follow 
that we should give up the Sabbath, which God himself has 
ordained, and plainly pointed out at creation, nor that we 
should move it unto any other day of the week, because that 
day is a commemorative day. To do this we need just as plain 
a commandment of God declaring that the first day is repealed. 
But where do we find such a commandment? It is true that 
no such a commandment is found. 


Uventist Research 

— 162 — 

In the laws of the state we afterward find the prohibition 
against Sunday work further and further extended, and the 
people threatened with more and more punishment if they dis- 
regarded it. Besides the giving of laws, we also find a new 
theological doctrine concerning Sunday : That Sunday-keeping 
is founded on the Sabbath-keeping which God ordained through 
Moses. Yet this doctrine does not seem through all the sixth 
century to have become a definite dogma in the church. 

If we try now to collect that which may be learned from 
history concerning Sunday and the development of Sunday- 
keeping, then the sum is this: Neither the apostles nor the first 
Christians nor the ancient councils have marked the Sunday 
with the name and mark of the Sabbath, but the church and 
scholastic doctors of the Middle Ages have done this. 

1. That Sunday is not the Sabbath of the Old Testament, 
and that this is not the common belief in the Christian church ; 
but it is rather a mistaken idea, that the Sabbath should be 
changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. 

2. That keeping Sunday with rest from labor and divine 
worship, has not by the most renowned ancient Fathers been 
founded on the Sabbath of the Old Testament, neither refer- 
ence to the Sabbath of the Old Testament entered into the con- 
fession of the church before the sixth century after Christ. 

3. That this doctrine first arose in the papal Church, that 
Sunday-keeping is commanded in the third commandment, and 
that the essential and prominent part of this commandment is 
a decree from God; to wit, to keep a holy day once a week. 

Some may question the correctness of the statement 
here made, that the doctrine that the fourth command- 
ment requires a seventh part of time, and is so far moral, 
and not the particular day, which was ceremonial, had 
its origin in the Catholic Church. Coleman says that 
Dr. Bound was the first to promulgate this doctrine, in a 
book published in 1595. But Coleman was certainly in- 
correct in this, for the same doctrine was taught by 
Thomas Aquinas more than three centuries before Dr. 
Bound, and Dr. Heylyn attributes it to the school-men 
of the Middle Ages. It is found distinctly stated in the 
Catholic Catechism entitled, "Abridgment of Christian 
Doctrine." There is no room for just doubt that they 
who argue thus— and the majority of Protestant Sunday- 
keepers do so argue— are following the lead of the 
papal doctors. When this writer says that the Sunday 
is not the Sabbath of the Old Testament, he means that 
it is not required by, or does not grow out of, the Sabbath 
commandment in the Old Testament. 

Digitized by the Center 

— 163 — 

From the decided tone and substance of the above ex- 
tracts, it may be t hought that I have now entered upon 
a new line, and given the conclusion and the summary of 
some advocate of the seventh-day Sabbath. But not so. 
The expression ' 1 our Sunday," shows its origin. This 
is copied from a work, " History of Sunday," by Rev. A. 
Grimlund, lately a Lutheran bishop of Norway. And 
the work itself was written to counteract the influence 
of Sabbath teachers, and to vindicate the action of the 
church in retaining a practice so well established by 
custom. Why, then, if such was his object, did he give 
such an overwhelming testimony against the Sunday, 
and so strongly vindicate the Sabbath ? In return, I 
ask, How can any one give a genuine history of Sunday 
and do otherwise ? All honest historians— and of such 
I take Rev. Grimlund to be one— are compelled by the 
facts of the Bible and of history to defend the Sabbath 
and to condemn the Sunday. Their theological opinions 
aud associations may lead in another direction ; their 
choice might be of another conclusion ; but that other 
conclusion they can never reach by any fair treatment 
of the Bible and of history. In their cases we are re- 
minded of the prophecy of Balaam. He started out to 
serve the king of Moab, and to curse Israel ; but the 
Spirit of God turned it into a blessing. Balaam, though 
his heart was not in union with the message of the 
Lord, was not yet entirely left of the Lord to follow his 
own way. And so of these : they are not in sympathy 
with the commandment of God ; they start out to serve 
the Sunday ; but the truth of God turns their witness 
into a vindication of the Sabbath. And I here state it as 
my firm conviction, that when an individual, who has 
ever been instructed in the truth on this subject, can no 
longer find evidence in the Bible to support the Sabbath 
of the Lord, and can fiud evidence in history to uphold 
Sunday, it is because the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of 
truth, has left him to his own way, to walk in the way of 
his own heart's devisings. 

I will here answer a question that has been proposed ; 
it is said the Reformers, represented in the Augsburg 
Confession, and other authors quoted, were no-Sabbath 
men ; they held that the Sabbath was entirely abrogated, 
and that it has no divine substitute in the gospel. In 
giving their testimony, do you not bind yourself to 
accept their conclusion, and to reject the Sabbath alto- 

dventist Research 

— 164— 

gether ? Or, why accept them in statement and deny 
their conclusion ? In answering this, I can but express 
my surprise that the questioners do not perceive any 
difference between a historical statement of fact, and a 
theological opinion. In accepting the history of Ne- 
ander, I do not thereby bind myself to accept his 
theology. To be consistent, the questioners must reject 
the history of Gibbon, or turn skeptics. The Reformers 
were all raised in the bosom of the Catholic Church. 
They were piously trained from infancy to regard the 
seventh day as a Jewish Sabbath, and to call the Sunday 
the Lord's day. Now, as to whether the Saviour abol- 
ished the ten commandments, and with them the Sab- 
bath, is a theological question ; it is only a matter of 
Scripture interpretation. In that we think the Reformers 
retained a grievous error of their early training; but 
that does not invalidate their testimony in regard to a 
matter of fact with which they were well acquainted. 

In closing these remarks, I wish to say to the reader 
that I have quoted very little from history that has not 
already been quoted by the advocates of the Sabbath ; 
while I have left unnoticed a vast amount of historical 
testimony that is well known to the readers of the 
writings of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh- 
day Baptists. When Eld. Canright says that the Sab- 
batarians, in searching 200 years, have not been able to 
find an item of proof that the papacy changed the Sab- 
bath, much of the reflection was intended to fall on the 
Seventh-day Baptists ; for they, and not the Adventists, 
have been advocating the Sabbath for 200 years. But if 
he has any knowledge of the authors and the literature 
of the Seventh-day Baptists (and if he has not, he is 
without excuse), he knows that his assertion does great 
injustice to that denomination. Amongst their authors 
are numbered men eminent for ability, for education, 
and for deep research, not to speak of their evident piety 
and conscientious regard for the truth of God's word. 
They have laid before the world a large amount of rich 
instruction from the Bible and from history on this im- 
portant subject. 

Now if I had exhausted the evidence, if no more his- 
torical proof could be given than I have given in thjs arti- 
cle, even then I could confidently appeal to the reader that 
Eld. Canright's assertion is made in sheer recklessness. 
Many of his friends have marked for years, with much 

Digitized by the Center 

— 165 — 

regret, this tendency in him to make confident assertions 
where proofs would have served a better purpose ; but 
never was a word more carelessly spoken than this, that 
Sabbatarians have never presented an item of historical 
evidence that the papacy changed the Sabbath. I know 
that I have not a particle of personal feeling in the 
matter, but I do not know how to palliate such a state- 
ment coming from one who has read Eld. J. N. Andrews's 
"History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week." 

I have avoided complicating my argument by noticing 
minor or incidental points. AH minor points and ob- 
jections can be easily met, but it has been my object to 
keep the main issue in view. And it is, in every sense, 
a main issue. Eld. Canright did not exaggerate when 
he said that we consider this a material question. We 
do indeed so consider it. And with the clear evidence 
before us that the papacy did change the Sabbath, and 
the fact that the Sunday institution will in every feature 
meet the description of such an institution in Rev. 13 : 
11-17, and that no other will, we are constrained to be- 
lieve—we cannot avoid it— that the Sunday-Sabbath is 
the burden of the awful warning found in Rev. 14 : 9-11. 
This is an issue that every one will have to meet It 
cannot always be turned aside with empty assertions. 
In the providence of God it is going to every nation, 
and men can do nothing against it. I trust that the 
Lord will make this present effort on the part of Eld. 
Canright the means of awakening inquiry, and of 
bringing the truth yet more clearly before thousands 
who will weigh the arguments with candor, and con- 
scientiously make their decisions. Let men oppose as 
they may, God's counsel will stand; his Jaw will be 
vindicated ; it will be victorious ; the call of the pro- 
phetic word will be heeded, and a company will take their 
stand on "the commandments of God and the faith of 
Jesus," who will be permitted to rejoice when the Son 
of man appears on the great white cloud to reap the 
harvest of the earth. Rev. 14 : 12-16. 

dventist Research 

— 166 — 


Nature and Progress of Our Work. 

In this, the closing article of this pamphlet, we wish to pre- 
sent a few considerations for the reader's perusal, concerning 
the character of the work itself and its present outlook. In do- 
ing this it will also be proper to glance at a few historical facts 
connected with its past history. 

S. D. Adventists have most firmly believed from the very fee- 
blest beginnings of this movement, that they had a special mes- 
sage for the people, based upon the sure word of prophecy, — 
a work of vast importance to mankind. Believing, as they do, 
that the end of earthly things is " near even at the doors," they 
believe with certain assurance that a message of warning must 
go forth to the world calling the attention of their fellow-men to 
this solemn fact. They cannot conceive how the merciful Cre- 
ator could bring the terrible destruction so often threatened in 
the Scriptures upon the race of man, and give them no oppor- 
tunity of being warned of their danger. This is clearly incon- 
sistent with the character ever ascribed to the great God in his 
own word. It is utterly contrary to his past dealings with the 
race of man. Whenever any just judgment has been impend- 
ing, God has mercifully warned those exposed to it, by sending 
devoted servants with messages of truth announcing the fact. 
So it was with the antediluvians and Sodomites, and with the Jews 
before either the destruction of Jerusalem occurred or they were 
carried captivity. So, also, it was even with the Gentile 
city of Nineveh. It matters not that such messages were un- 
popular and unheeded at the time, as they always were. It 
made no difference if the great majority utterly rejected the God- 
given warning. God showed his interest for man, and sought 
to save him. His character for love and mercy must be main- 
tained, whether men hear or forbear. 

We utterly reject the foolish notion entertained by the ortho- 
dox churches that Christ will come the second time, and the 
mass of mankind be exposed to terrible ruin, and they have no 
knowledge, nor a chance to obtain any light concerning this great 
event; but that like a clap of thunder from a clear sky, it will 
overtake all mankind without the slightest premonition. It is 
absurd and unscriptural. No reasonable person would pursue 
such a course toward those who were dependent upon him ; 
and God is certainly as considerate as man. The Bible brings 
to view clearly this fact, that before the great day of wrath shall 
come, a warning shall be given. Christ declares : " But as the 
days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man 
be." Matt. 24: 37. Did not Noah have a message of warning 

Digitized by the 

— 167 — 

to deliver? Then we must expect one before Christ comes. 
"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know 
ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." Luke 21 : 31. 
Signs are here given which are immediately to precede his ap- 
pearing, and be sure evidence of it. It were absurd to suppose 
that those warned of it would not warn others. Paul says : 
' * But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should 
overtake you as a thief." 1 Thess. 5:4. " That day " is when 
Christ comes, as the immediate connection shows. These breth- 
ren who have light will give that light to others. Says the 
prophet Joel: "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an 
alarm in my holy mountain : let all the inhabitants of the land 
tremble : for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand." 
Joel 2:1. We believe that when the time comes, the alarm 
will be sounded as the word declares. The prophet Zephaniah, 
In chap. 2:1-3, brings to view the same thing. But the sol- 
emn message to be proclaimed is most fully brought to view in 
Rev. 14 : 6-12. The most thrilling announcement in all the 
Bible is here made. The terrible destruction to be visited is 
here distinctly portrayed. The character of the work to be done 
is plainly indicated. Christ's coming in glory is here brought 
to view. 

S. D. Adventists fully believe that God has called them to 
proclaim this warning message to the world. They feel a woe is 
laid upon them if they prove unfaithful. They dare not do it. 
They feel there is one special work committed to their hands by 
the God of heaven, and they must be true to their allegiance 
and discharge this solemn duty. And though, as men who fear God 
and love humanity, they have an interest as truly as other men 
in all that concerns the plan of salvation which God has insti- 
tuted, and also in all reformatory movements designed to bene- 
fit humanity, yet fealty to their God-given, special work they are 
ever bound to show. They must be true to that, and sound 
the warning to earth's remotest bounds. They realize, of 
course, that those who hate their work will be inclined to take 
advantage of this fact, and will endeavor to show that S. D. 
Adventists care nothing for others, and are indifferent to the 
many important reform movements and efforts sought to be ad- 
vanced by good and faithful souls in the world around them. 
But they utterly deny these conclusions. They do love all that 
is good, and seek to show an interest in the same as far as they 
can without neglecting the special work of warning the world 
of coming judgments, which God has committed to them, and 
they have assumed. 

The very nature of their work requires of them an interest In 
all good things. Their platform of divine truth is a broad one: 
" Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the 

dventist Research 

— 168 - 

faith of Jams" Rev. 14:12. This embraces all the great 
moral truths of the old dispensation and the precious things of 
the new. 

The truths of this message, therefore, are not some new doc- 
trines, novelties just discovered, but rather a going back to the 
*' old paths," a restoration of precious truths lost through apos- 
tasy, but necessary to be restored to the people of God that they 
may be In readiness when Christ comes. It would be folly to sup- 
pose that when he comes in his glory he will find his people 
quarreling among themselves, holding various discordant doc- 
trines, some of them received from heathenism and apostasy, 
and neglecting the truths taught by him. When he comes, he- 
will find a people without 14 spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; " 
yea, " without fault before the throne of God. 1 ' Rev. 14 : 5. 
8. D. Adventists are free to admit they are very far from meet- 
ing that standard yet ; but they believe that when the "shaking 
time " shall have accomplished its work in the great trials just 
before us, there will come forth a faithful company through 
whom God will work with mighty power, who will meet this 

The discerning reader, then, cannot fail to see in the very 
nature of their platform of faith, and in view of the principles 
of their doctrinal belief, that they are bound to be interested in 
every good work existing among their fellow-men. Their re- 
form is broad enough to embrace all other reforms. It rejects 
all evil; it accepts all good. 

S. D. Adventists are perfectly willing that their record should 
be examined on this point by all candid persons who will 
weigh and consider all the circumstances. Such will find that 
intelligent members of this body have ever stood in the fore- 
front of the reform movements of the age, so far as being loyal 
to them is concerned. The church was a unit in its opposition 
to slavery when nearly all the great popular religious bodies of 
the land were either divided upon the question or wholly sold 
to its support. Our people as a body are in advance of almost 
any other church in the land on the temperance question. Our 
membership are practically unanimous in favor of total absti- 
nence from all that intoxicates, and for the prohibition of the 
liquor traffic. They carry the principles of temperance farther 
than any other people we know of in the world. Instead of 
confining it merely to intoxicating drinks, they teach its applica- 
tion to everything that is hurtful, as tobacco, opium, tea, coffee, 
etc., and have thus taught for a quarter of a century. They 
believe that everything that is injurious to the physical, men- 
tal, or moral nature should be cast aside. They are equally 
loyal, in their teaching, to the principles of social purity and all 
other genuine reforms. 

Digitized by the 

— 169 — 

Yet they do keep in the forefront, and must ever do 80 
while they exist as a people, the great truths of their special 
work of warning the world of Christ's soon coming, and the 
necessary preparation for it. Therefore they cannot give their 
principal attention to other objects, however worthy they may 
be, though deeply interested in them, and standing ready to as- 
sist whenever they can. 

This attitude will displease those, of course, who have no 
faith in this special work, and who may be interested in the 
other reform work to which we have alluded. They will see 
no propriety in it Regarding the doctrine of the soon coming 
of Christ and the Sabbath reformation with abhorrence, they 
will not look with favor upon those teaching these truths as a 
specialty, even if they do hold other points in common. They 
will dislike us for the reason that they hate that which we 
make so important. 

Here is where our position as a people is exceedingly difficult 
and embarrassing. We are thrown, measurably at least, out of 
the fellowship and good will of those holding many reforms in 
common with us, because they dislike our special work. And 
we cannot, of course, expect the favor of those who are opposed 
to both our special work and the reforms we teach. The very 
circumstances of our position and the principles we teach, 
therefore, make us unpopular with the great bodies of our land. 
This is not something of our own choosing. But the principles 
we hold sacred as God's eternal truth, which we cannot ignore 
or disregard, and the attitude the religious bodies of the land 
assume toward them, force us into this position. We would 
gladly have it otherwise if it so pleased God. But as it seems 
inevitable that we should occupy this unpopular position, we 
accept it as our heritage, and meekly submit to the treatment 
which this position brings upon ua. We must be faithful to 
our God-given work. 

This position, of course, gives an excellent chance for apos- 
tates and other enemies to ridicule, and misrepresent, and ma- 
lifrn us. We accept this also as our heritage. But we shall do 
our best to show up their wickedness when loyalty to the cause 
requires it, and they stand in the way of the work, and seri- 
ously interfere with its progress, and endanger honest souls. 

This special movement has existed about forty years, com- 
mencing a year or two after the gretft disappointment of the Ad- 
vent believers in 1844. We regard that movement as a fulfill- 
ment of prophecy, and believe that it was In the order of God. 
Great power attended it, as even its enemies admit. 

The present movement commenced in great feebleness, pov- 
erty and perplexity. Never did a movement commence in this 
world which demanded more faith than this. It was under a 

mkventist Research 

— 170 - 

terrible cloud of popular disfavor because it grew out of the 
" Millcrite movement," as its enemies delighted to represent it. 
Its earlier advocates had all been in that movement, and shared 
in the disappointment. 

Eld. Joseph Bates, Eld. and Mrs. White, and Eld. J. N. 
Andrews were among the first who discerned the harmonious 
system of truth now taught by this people. We then had no 
churches, no organization of any kind, no printing-offices, 
books, or papers, no colleges, no health institutions. All of 
these had to be created. We had then no experience in mak- 
ing converts to the faith, and indeed at first scarce a soul out- 
side of the disappointed Advent believers could be found who 
would listen at all. The pioneers commenced their work by 
visiting private families, holding meetings of a handful in 
kitchens and barns, laboring every way under the greatest dis- 
advantages. There were scarcely any among the earlier be- 
lievers who had means above the barest necessities. The over- 
plus had been spent in the Advent movement. But these pio- 
neers had their Bibles and faith in God. They sought 
with strong crying and many tears to know his will and to un- 
derstand his word. And gradually, link by link, the precious 
system of truth now held, was revealed to their minds. Grad- 
ually, as they proclaimed these truths, believers were added. 

There has never been connected with this movement any 
great and special excitements, and large accessions coming in 
in large bodies. Its growth has been a healthy one, reached by 
thorough conviction of the truthfulness of our positions. The 
tremendous cross connected with the seventh-day Sabbath and 
the unpopularity of our work has stood in the way of multi- 
tudes embracing it at a time. People would never do so unless 
their understanding and conscience convinced them that they 
must. But this we can say, with all our hinderances, unpopu- 
larity, trials, apostasies, and pressure from without, there has 
never been a year since the work commenced but that there 
has been a gain; sometimes greater and sometimes less, but al- 
ways a growth. 

But it may be inquired, Have you ever had to meet, in the 
history of your work, opposition from those who have with- 
drawn from you, like this which Eld. Canright has lately inau- 
gurated?— Oh, yes; instance after instance of it. We have 
never had an attack upon us before from such persons which 
has been so extensively circulated before the public as this, 
through the religious papers of the popular denominations, to 
distant portions of the earth. We have never had one to meet 
before which in some particulars was so unprovoked, and mani- 
fested such utter forgetfulness of past kindness, and showed 
such ingratitude and determination to kill our influence before 
the general public But we have had several which threatened 

Digitized by the 

— 171 — 

far greater losses in membership than this has yet Indicated. 
When these occurred, our people were far less in number and 
influence than now. Such attacks then threatened far greater 
proportional loss than this. We will mention a few as 
illustrations : — 

In the early days of the movement, when we were very few 
in number, probably less than one thousand, Elds. Stephenson 
and Hall, of Wisconsin, withdrew from the ranks. They were 
persons of considerable ability and influence, and our numbers 
being bo few, the loss at first seemed almost irreparable. Quite 
a following went with them. This interfered with the progress 
of the work in that section considerably for a time, and sent a 
shock through the little denomination which was seriously felt. 
But in a little time the growth was still more rapid. Wisconsin 
has since become one of our strongest Conferences. 

Some years later, another split-on* occurred in the State of 
Michigan. It was called the " Hope of Israel » party. It com- 
prehended quite a following. They started a paper by that 
name, through which to pour out their feelings of bitterness. 
They attacked the visions and the reputation of Eld. and Mrs. 
White much as Eld. Canright does, and for a little time they 
seemed to make quite a stir. But they soon fell to pieces, like 
a rope of sand. Their paper went down. We believe there are 
a few of them left here in Michigan somewhere, but they have 
almost disappeared from view. 

After a few years, Elds. Snook and Brinkerhoff, of the Iowa 
Conference, the one president and the other secretary of the 
Conference, and the only ministers of any kind in it, got into 
trial, came to a General Conference at Battle Creek, Mich., ap- 
parently all in harmony, and returned with evil reports, which 
they distributed from church to church in a manner not cred- 
itable. They soon had quite a commotion. Without entering 
into particulars, we will simply say, They both left our people, 
bitterly fighting us, published pamphlets in opposition to the 
visions and other points of faith, much after Eld. Canright's 
style, got possession of the type and press of the old " Hope of 
Israel " party, moved them out to Marion, Iowa, and for a time 
seemed to be quite a party. 

They took with them, to the best of our knowledge, fully one 
third of the churches and membership of the Iowa Conference. 
Things looked rather dubious for that Conference for a little 
season, as not a minister was left in it. The two departing 
elders busied themselves going from church to church doing 
their utmost to tear down. But behold the results I In a few 
years that Conference had Increased its membership threefold ; 
it had a good corps of earnest, intelligent ministers in the field ; 
and to-day it stands second or third in point of numbers and 

dventist Research 

financial strength among our Conferences throughout the field. 
Its growth was never so rapid as it was soon after this rebellion. 
Elds. 8. and B. soon gave up the Sabbath, and have since 
united with the Universalists. They long ago ceased to trouble 
our Israel. But there has ever since remained a small residuum 
of that movement at Marion, Iowa, which publishes a little 
paper, and manages to keep alive by affording a channel of 
communication for the dissatisfied spirits who withdraw from 
our ranks. 

Moses Hull, once quite a prominent debater and writer, also 
withdrew from our ranks, and became a Spiritualist. He fell 
very low in the scale of morality. 

We might mention quite a number of lesser lights who have 
also retired from us into obscurity and darkness, but we do 
not care to disturb them by even mentioning their names. 

What lessons have we learned from all this experience ? — 
We have learned that this movement, like every other special 
movement of God's origination, is unpopular, and that there 
will be apostasies from time to time connected with it. Those 
whose faith fails them, or for whom the way becomes too strait, 
will withdraw, and try to make it hard for those who remain, 
endeavoring to destroy their confidence. There is always a 
fearful conflict connected with the special work of God. 

Satan hates every such move, and will do his utmost to break 
it down. See how it was in Noah's time. Only eight souls were 
saved. How was it in Moses' time ?— All but two of the adults 
failed to reach the promised land. Rebellion, murmuring, and 
every evil found a place among the people. The work of ele- 
vating human nature and training it up to a higher plane Is 
one of difficulty, and many will not bear it. Hence sharp con- 
tention has to be met. God's special work is not a sluggish, 
dormant Dead Sea ; it is a sharp conflict with evil in every form. 
Even when Christ came, and "spake as never man spake," 
multitudes became interested but to turn back and " walk no 
more with him." John 6 : 66. Judas betrayed him, Peter denied 
him, and all M forsook him and fled." Paul met the same experi- 
ence. Demas forsook him, " having loved this present world." He 
says on another occasion, " All they which are in Asia be turned 
away from me." 2 Tim. 1:15. Prominent men left him. Whole 
churches, like those of Corinth and Galatia, were almost ruined. 

So it has ever been. Shall we therefore conclude our work 
is a failure because here and there men apostatize and turn 
upon us with hatred ? — Oh, no 1 we will simply pity their 
blindness, then close the ranks and move forward in our work, 
fearlessly declaring the message God has given to us. 

This present move does not alarm ub. We are not sure but 
we should be better off if quite a number of half-hearted be 

- 173 — 

lievers (of which we have quite a quantity) were purged out. 
To all such we say, U you cannot be converted, it would be 
better for you to withdraw. If you remain in this half-hearted 
condition, we' can do you little good, and you certainly can do 
us none. We have found in the past, instance after instance, 
when the unbelieving have withdrawn, the work has moved 
forward much more rapidly. God then works for us, and 
makes up our losses. 

We have also learned by much experience that this work is 
hard to kill It is something like a wall four feet high and six 
feet thick; when you turn it over it is higher than ever. It 
seems to prosper with trial and scourging and defamation and 
opposition. A storm is better for it than a calm. It brightens 
up the old soldiers, puts new life into them, makes them more 
aggressive than ever. We rather need something of this kind 
once in a while to scour and brighten us up and make us look 
at the old foundations, so that we shall feel for the pillars of 
the faith. Such times briug the loyal to the front and the 
cowards to the rear. We expect Eld. Canright's raid will, on 
the whole, be a blessing to us. 

A few closing words as to the present condition of the work: 
The outlook was never so favorable before. This movement 
has passed its feeble stage, where it attracted the attention of 
but an obscure few. It is at the present time reaching its long 
arms around the world. Its enemies are getting exceedingly 
anxious as to how they are going to meet it. It has burst its 
swaddling bands, and like a strong young man is going forth 
to conquer new fields. It is not confined to little country 
places, back-woods settlements, and the farming community, 
but it is entering the largest cities, going to the greatest na- 
tions of the earth, speaking through the great papers of the 
world. Others are looking to see what kind of a work this 
people are doing. „ ^ ii, 

There is one point connected with this raid of Eld. Canright's 
which has especially interested us. It is the eagerness with 
which his attacks have been received by leading religious pa- 
pers and by the Protestant ministry even in Europe, Australia, 
and the most distant parts of the world. A brother in Europe 
writes that where our workers begin to attract attention in vari- 
ous localities, they are met by a host of quotations from Ehl. 
Canright, our apostate " leader." 

This at first sight might seem discouraging, but we are ac- 
customed to look beyond the mere present to more distant ef- 
fects. This fact simply shows that these ministers are put to 
their wit's end to know how to meet S. D. Adventists. nence 
they hail with ill-concealed joy some help from Eld. Canright. 
He can, perchance, furnish them ammunition which they were 

Adventist Research 

— 174 — 

not able to find themselves. What does this show? — Simply 
that our work is attracting the attention of people in the most 
distant parts of the world. What would these have cared for 
Eld. Canright had not their fears of " Adventism " made them 
anxious for help ? But when they see the best and most con- 
scientious of their flock becoming interested in the presentation 
of these Bible truths, and for their lives they know not how to 
meet their arguments, they begin to look around for assistance. 
Along comes column after column of defamation of this people, 
and statements showing them up in the worst possible light. 
Then, to be sure, they are delighted. Canright is a Godsend. 

Well, let them make the most of him. We, however, only 
see additional evidence from all this that the influence of this 
work is already becoming great in the world. When our ene- 
mies are so anxious, why should we despond 1 

The present year has witnessed the greatest increase of our 
publishing work ever seen in the history of this cause. We 
are publishing in all the leading languages of the civilized 
world. We have very large offices of publication in Battle 
Creek, Mich., and Oakland, California; smaller ones in Basel, 
Switzerland, and Christiana, Norway. We also publish period- 
icals in London, England, and Melbourne, Australia. We have 
important centers of missionary effort in England, the Scandi- 
navian countries, Central Europe, South Africa, Australia, and 
New Zealand; and believers, more or less, in nearly all parts of 
the civilized world. The bulk of our membership is, of course, 
in the United States. We have some twenty-nine organized 
State Conferences, and several others soon to be organized. Our 
colleges and city-mission training-schools are preparing workers 
more rapidly than ever in the past. 

Some two thousand of our people are scattered in little com- 
panies in the Old World, in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ger- 
many, Switzerland, Holland, France, Italy, Roumania, Russia, 
the Crimea, the Caucasus, and in the British Isles. These serve 
as a nucleus,— a center from which to distribute our literature, 
and from which to work for the conversion of souls. We pub- 
lish about twenty different periodicals in the interest of this 
cause. We are having a reasonable and constant growth every 

While we are free to admit that many among us are far from 
coming up to the standard of our Saviour's teaching and the 
truths we hold, yet even our enemies themselves who know us 
best, are constrained to admit we are an honest, devoted, con- 
scientious people, and that our members are more devoted to 
religion, proportionately to numbers, than any people they 
know of in the world. Eld. Canright has admitted this. 

On the whole, then, our work never looked so promising as 

Digitized by the 

at the present time. Its influence never was so great before 
Its prospects of accomplishing the great work foretold by 
prophecy never looked so near a consummation as now We 
feel sure the work will triumph in the end, because we see the 
hand of God in it, and because it has the sanction of his word 
Iherefore we have no cause for discouragement, but every rea- 
son to look up and lift up our heads, for our redemption draw- 
etn nigh. "The foundation of God standeth sure, having this 
seal, The Lord knoweth them that arc his." G . i7 b. 


J^, thls rt et ^ n < lve s ! ,ok ™ ont earnestly and 
plainly on the subject* we have had in hand. But nothing 
has been set down in malice or ill-will. We have aimed sim- 
ply to defend the truth, and this we cannot be blamed for do- 
ing when we see it attacked in a manner calculated to mis- 
represent ^it before the people, and mislead and deceive the 
honest We have aimed only at the good of all concerned 
And if the language in some instances should seem strone 
we ask the reader to attribute it to our love for the precious 
cause in which we believe ourselves to be engaged, rather than 
to any desire to seem harsh or severe. Examine the truth on 
its own merits, and decide according to the testimony which 
it presents. And may C.od bless the reader with a discerning 
spirit and an obedient heart. * 

Iventist Research 


This pamphlet was written to meet a special demand. 
II was first published in the form of Review and Her- 
ald Extra, Nos. 1 and 2, No. 1 appearing in December, 
1887, and No. 2, in February, 1888. Large numbers of 
these were circulated in this form. To meet the present 
and future demand, it was thought best to place the first 
issue of the Extra in the form of a pamphlet. To this 
is added Extra No. 2, and hence they appear as Part L 
and Part II. of this pamphlet. Part II. was written in 
reply to strictures which Eld. Canright made after read- 
ing Extra No. 1. 

Eld. Canright has now given up most of the distinct- 
ive doctrines which he formerly held as a Seventh-day 
Adventist, and joined his interests with the popular 
churches which he formerly opposed ; so they take much 
pleasure in circulating his writings as extensively as pos 
sible. As the matter in this pamphlet effectually refutes 
many of his statements and so-called arguments, it seems 
necessary to have it ready for use. It will, no doubt, be 
needed for some time to come. Should the matter con- 
tained in it seem to the reader to be in any wise unchar- 
itable, and too combative, let him consider the nature 
of the attacks made upon us, and our long silence till 
forced to take up the unpleasant task of reviewing one 
who has represented us so unjustly. We dislike much 
this kind of warfare, but necessity sometimes compels it. 
We trust this may be the last time we shall be compelled 
to notice this attack. We hope this pamphlet will be 
the means of saving many from deception, and of open- 
ing the eyes of honest souls. G. i. b. 


Digitized by the 


The readers of the Review Extra* of Nov. 22 1887 
containing the "Reply to the Attacks of Eld. D M Can- 
right" upon Seventh-day Adventists, will remember the 
statement we made therein that we did not intend to 
publish anything further concerning him or his work 
Having been forced by the publicity and virulence of 
his attacks, after long and patient waiting, on our part 
to take up the defensive, notice him and his work, and 
reply to a few of his arguments and misrepresentations 
we intended to leave the matter to the judgment of a 
discriminating public, and say no more concerning him 

But within the last few weeks we have received a doc- 
ument from him which he demands should be published 
by us, to correct certain " wrong statements" which he 
claims we made concerning him in the Extra Of 
course, we ever hold ourselves ready as honest men to 
correct every wrong statement we make concerning oth- 
ers which really injures them. And if it be true that 
we have done Eld. Canright an injury bv anything we 
have said, we would cheerfully correct and acknowledge 
it. But we will consider that question hereafter. 

We make this preliminary statement that the reader 
may see that the cause of our bringing him again before 
the public is his own demand upon us to do so We 
should not for a moment have thought of doing it, but 
for his urgent request Our attitude is still that* of the 
strictly defensive. As we do not care to bring these per- 
sonal matters into the regular issue of the Review and 
Herald, it is thought necessary to publish a small 
Extra, No. 2. We now give Eld. Canrighfs reply to 
the Extra in full. Gm j BuTL ^ 

Explanatory Noti on page i?k * L « in harmony with 


h\dventist Research 

— 180 — 


Otsego, Mich., Dec. 97, 1887. 
Editors or the Review and Herald: — 

Brethren: Your Extra relating to myself has been read. Of 
course, things appear to me very different from what they do to 
you. I would like to point out many things which to me seem 
clearly erroneous ; but I know you would not publish them if I did. 
Many of your statements with regard to me are not correct ; in 
some cases only half the truth is told, and in others facts are 
omitted which would give a very different coloring to the mat- 
ter Still, from my long acquaintance with you, I cannot be- 
lieve that you would knowingly make a false statement to in- 
jure me, or that you are not willing to correct a wrong statement 
when convinced that it is wrong. Hence I ask you to correct 
two or three of the gravest ones, concerning which I can readily 
furnish the evidence. It was only a few weeks ago that you 
felt greatly grieved with the editor of the Advocate because he 
would not, as you claimed, correct an offensive statement con- 
cerning your people. So I will now expect you to be willing to 
do me justice in this matter. 
On page 2 of the Extra, Eld. Butler says:— 
A little previous to the time of our camp-meeting ^at Grand Rapids] 
HMfl OanrW came to the city and visited most of the newspaper of 
flees, to oblain Z privilege of inserting articles in the city papers 
against us. 

Then it Is stated that handbills were scattered by my agents 
(page 87) upon the grounds, etc. Neither statement is true. 
Two weeks before the camp-meeting, by urgent request I went 
to Grand Rapids, and met one of the. men from the Democrat 
office at Dr. Veenboer's office. He said that the editors wished 
me to write a half dozen articles on the other side, as they had 
published so much from the Adventists that their readers did 
not like it. I agreed on six aiticles, for which Dr. Veenboer 
paid me. I came home the same day, and was not there again 
till after camp-meeting. Dr. V., without asking me, had some 
of the articles struck off and distributed on the grounds, which 
I should not have done. I did not visit a single newspaper of- 
flee, nor ask any one to print anything for me. Here is the 
doctor's own statement:— 

« Grand Rapids, Dec. 27, 1887. 

" Rev. D. M. Canright, Otsego, Mich. 

" Dear Elder: I received an Extra of the Review and Her- 
ald, dated Nov. 22, 1887, in which Geo. I. Butler makes state- 
ments so utterly false that I wish you would call on him to re- 
tract and repair your injury done by his slander:— 

Digitized by the 

-181 — 

♦ Ai Z P^ 00 ? t° the tome of our camp-meeting. Eld. Canright came 
to the city [Grand Rapids], and visited most of the newspaper offices 
u°s,°ete m pnvile S e of inserting articles in the city papers against 

"Now, all the work of opposition, 'visiting newspapers.' 
'distributing handbills at the West Michigan Fair,' 'scatter- 
ing thousands of copies' of 'Mrs. White,"the prophetess,' at 
the camp-ground, was done without the knowledge or consent 
of Mr. Can right, except that I made arrangement once for a 
newspaper man to meet the Elder at my office, where arrange- 
ments were made to publish a half dozen articles on Seventh- 
day Adventism, by Eld. Canright. These articles were written 
by him at the urgent request of half a dozen of our ministers 
and some laymen. They were used by me and some of these 
men for the good of the cause of truth against the unbiblical 
doctrines of Adventism, at the Fair and camp-grounds, and in 
our daily papers. Melle Veenboer." 

This is enough on that point 

On page 15 is a statement from Bro. Butler, concerning my 
ordination, which is untrue and very unjust, both to myself and 
to the church with which I united. He accuses me of putting 
a padlock upon my mouth on the subject of the soul, insinua- 
ting that I sold my conscience and my liberty for a place in the 
church. Bro. T. M. Shanafelt, of Three Rivers, secretary of 
the Michigan Baptist State convention, was secretary of the 
council, and heard all that was said. Here is his testimony :— 

"My attention has been called to a copy of the Advent Re- 
view and Herald Extra, dated Nov. 22, 1887. This Extra 
seems to be devoted exclusively to replies to Rev. D. M. 
Canright, now pastor of the Baptist church in Otsego, Mich., 
but formerly a Seventh-day Advent minister. Mr. Canright 
was ordained at Otsego, after a thorough and satisfactory exam- 
ination by a large council which met at the call of the Otsego 
Baptist church, March 19, 1887. The undersigned was secre- 
tary of the council. 

"In the copy of the Review and Herald referred to, in the 
article entitled ' 0 Consistency ! ' the following reference is 
made to Mr. Canright and the council that ordained him :— 

We are also informed that in his examination before the council of 
Baptist ministers just before his re-ordination at Otsego last Bprino- 
when those points of faith involving the soul question came up, the 
Elder was meekly modest in his statements, and "wanted time" 
further to examine the subject before he felt inclined to state his posi- 
tions. And also that he was accorded a private examination by the 
council of divines on this question, the proceedings and result of 
which we have never been able to learn. 

mdventist Research 

— 182 — 

" Neither of the above statements is true. The * soul question * 
was not discussed, and Mr. Canright was not accorded a private 
examination on that question nor any other. Such a proceed- 
ing, which is contrary to Baptist usage and custom, was not 
suggested nor thought of by Mr. Canright or any of the large 
number of ministers and laymen who composed the council. 

"T. M. Shanafelt. 

11 Three Rivers, Mich., Dec. S3, 1887." 

This states the truth exactly. Eld. Butler was misinformed 
on this point, as on many others. Simply one question was 
asked with regard to the dead, I think, or the resurrection, that 
was all. My Baptist brethren have accorded me the fullest 
freedom in preaching the word of God as I understand it, and 
I have done so with all the freedom which I ever enjoyed among 
the Adventists, or could wish anywhere. If you think I am 
afraid to speak my mind on the soul question, give me two col- 
umns in the Review, and you shall have it plainly. 

Once more : On page 98 Bro. Smith accuses me of duplicity 
in writing differently for different papers. Does he find a line 
in one contradicting what I wrote in another ?— No, only as he 
construes it so. But he says I dare not send to the Methodist 
Advocate a certain sentence on the abolition of the decalogue 
which I published in the Oracle. But that is just what I did 
do ; for T sent that very article, as printed in the Oracle, to the 
editor of the Advocate, and he wrote me, " Your article on Co- 
lossians 2 is very fine," and offered to publish It. Lack of 
space was all that prevented its publication entire. Abridged, 
it was published as article No. 11. 

I believe you will have the fairness to correct these state- 
ments, which are calculated to injure my reputation as an honest 
man. I will try to profit by the lessons you read me in the 
Extra. I freely own myself to be a poor, erring mortal, liable 
to make Bad mistakes, even when I try to do my best. The con- 
sciousness of my weaknesses often overwhelms me with dis- 
couragement, but I know I have tried to do what I thought was 
right I try to show the same mercy and consideration for 
others which I hope for myself at the Judgment. I am not 
conscious of any hard feelings toward my former brethren, 
though I am well convinced that their doctrine is an error. 

D. M. Canright. 


It will be seen from the above that Eld. Canright is so 
urgent to have us publish his article that he appeals to 

Digitized by the 

— 183 

our sense of fairness to induce us to do so. He calls to 
our attention the fact that the editor of the Review 
demanded of the Advocate the correction of some grossly 
erroneous charges, which the latter never would correct. 
He evidently thinks we will be more fair than the Meth- 
odist editor, and we will justify his good opinion of us 
by publishing his statement. Those who are right can 
afford to be fair. The reader will see, then, that this 
publication is issued entirely because of the Elder's de- 

Eld. Canright claims that I have misrepresented him, 
and injured his reputation by statements which I made 
concerning his visiting the newspaper offices in Grand 
Rapids before our camp-meeting, and getting his articles 
into the papers, and having them scattered on the camp- 
ground. He says my statements concerning these things 
are untrue. He brings in a letter from Dr. Veenboer to 
substantiate his statements. The reader will carefully 
notice what the Elder and his ally have said. I will at 
this point also introduce a letter from Eld. H. W. Miller, 
who lived at Grand Rapids at the time, and acted as the 
agent of our Conference, securing space in the columns 
of the city newspapers for the publication of reports of 
our camp-meeting : — 

Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 31, 1888. 
Eld. Q. I. Butler, Battle Creek, Mich. 

Dear Bro: In reply to your letter of the 26th, I will say that 
about the first of September, 1887, I tisited the editors and 
business managers of three of the leading dailies of this city, and 
made arrangements to report, through their papers, the proceed- 
ings of our camp-meeting, which was to be held in this city the 
last of September. Four or five days before our meeting proper 
was to begin, and during our preparatory meeting, two of these 
papers began the publication of a series of articles from the pen 
of Eld D. M. Canright, which consisted not only of an unjust 
attack upon certain points of faith held by Seventh-day Advent- 
ists, but of a personal reference to certain leading writers and 
speakers of that denomination. Now, as the principal consider- 
ation in the matter of reporting our meeting was, that we should 
circulate several hundred copies of each of these dailies, we felt it 
duty to call and ascertain somethingof the nature of the articles we 
were about to circulate. We were informed by the managers of 
two of these dailies that arrangements had been made by Eld. 
Canright or his allies to have a series of articles from the Elder's 

Wtkdventist Research 

— 184 — 

pen appear in their columns during the week of our camp-meet- 
ing. And the business manager of the other paper told us that 
they had been urged to publish the same articles, but positively 
refused to have anything to do with it. 

Whether Eld. C. personally visited these publishing firms is a 
very minor matter ; but the evidence is abundant that they were 
visited by him or some of those who were intimately connected 
in the plot to secure the publication of his articles in the 
papers of which we expected to circulate about 2500 through- 
out the State. As his articles were so full of a revengeful spirit, 
and consisted so largely of personal attacks upon those from 
whom he had so recently withdrawn, it took but little argument 
to convince those who had published a few of his articles, that 
justice to us, in accordance with our former contract, would de- 
mand that they be discontinued, at least during the time we re- 
ported our meetings through their columns. Eld. Canright, 
however, was not well satisfied with all this, as was seen by the 
article he wrote and the strong effort he and his friends made to 
have it published in Sunday's issue of Oct. 2, I was personally 
interviewed by the editor concerning the publication of this 
piece, and he being more honorable than the others, did not al- 
low its publication in his paper of that date. 

But Eld. Canright and his associates were not of the submis- 
sive kind ; so they had the said article struck off in sheet form, 
and all day Sunday, Oct. 2, their agents surrounded the camp, 
when thousands were in attendance, freely scattering these sheets. 
It was a very noticeable fact, however, that many of those who 
were doing this menial work for them, were so far down in the 
intellectual scale that they could not even read what they were 
giving to others. • H. W. Miller. 

This brings the whole question before us from parties 
intimately connected with the matter on both sides. Eld. 
Canright and Dr. Veenboer state that the Elder did not 
personally visit the newspaper offices, or engage in the 
circulation of these articles against us on the grounds, 
etc. Suppose we grant this to be true, as they state, — 
and we have no disposition to deny it, — what then is the 
result? And how far does it prove that we have treated 
him unjustly or misrepresented him? The facts ad- 
mitted or proved are these: — 

1. Eld. Canright knew very well that we were about 
to have a large camp-meeting in Grand Rapids, and that 
it was always our custom on such occasions to have full 
reports of the same in the leading city papers. 

Digitized by the 

— 185— 

2 He knew this Dr. Veenboer was a very bitter op- 
ponent of our people and doctrines, and that he would 
do everything in his power to make us odious in the eyes 
of the public. 

3. Knowing this full well, as we have reason to be- 
lieve there had been much correspondence between 
them, he came to this man's office, made a bargain with 
him to write six articles against 8. D. Adventists, and 
placed them in his hands ; and this man " paid " him for 
them, according to the Elder's own admission. 

4. Somebody acting for this partnership of Canright, 
Veenboer & Co., did visit the three leading newspapers 
in the city, and two of them published articles for them, 
and one refused. 

5. When our agent, Eld. H. W. Miller, visited these 
offices, and objected to being made a party to carry out 
this plot of forcing our people to circulate Eld. Can- 
right's virulent articles against our faith, and slanders 
against our leading workers, these papers agreed to with- 
hold the publication of them till the camp-meeting was 

6. During the progress of the camp-meeting, just be- 
fore the most important day of it (Sunday), the Elder 
wrote another article, not included in the six he was 
"paid" for. It was the most bitter of any of them. 
From expressions in it concerning the "camp-ground," 
we know it was intended to be circulated on the ground; 
e. g. t "All of Mrs. White's books from which I quoted 
are at the camp." " Examine them and see if I have n't 
quoted them right." The agents of the above firm, Can- 
right, Veenboer & Co., brought a big pressure to bear, 
to get this into the papers. Failing in that, as Eld. 
Miller says, their " agents surrounded the camp, when thou- 
sands were in attendance, freely scattering these sheets." 

These are the facts in the case. But now Eld. Can- 
right feels he has been abused, treated unjustly, and 
misrepresented by Eld. Butler, because I said, "Eld. 
Canright came to the city and visited most of the news- 
paper offices," and that his agents scattered handbills on 
the camp-ground, etc. And his right-hand man, Dr. 
Veenboer, steps up and generously exonerates the Elder, 
taking all the responsibility upon himself. We do not 
wonder the Elder desires to shift the responsibility of 
such dirty work as this, on to somebody. We are 

dventist Research 

— 187 — 

glad he has some sense of propriety yet left ; but he will 
lind it difficult to get rid of the responsibility, after all. 

What is the difference in principle, whether a man 
does a mean act himself, or so associates with other men 
that they do it for him, when the motive is transpar- 
ent that he desires it done? The first course shows 
courage. The other looks more sneaking. But the re- 
sponsibility inheres in either case. The principle is rec- 
ognized everywhere, that responsibility rests as much 
upon a person when he acts through agents, as when he 
does a thing himself. The popes erected St. Peter's 
cathedral; yet we do not suppose they ever struck a 
blow upon it, or laid a stone. Vanderbilt built one of 
the finest mansions in New York, yet never drove a nail 
in it Satan is the murderer of our race, yet perhaps 
never killed a man directly. But it is his influence 
which has led men to their ruin. Eld. Canright, in con- 
stant communication with Dr. Veenboer, visits him, 
writes some articles for him, gets "paid" for them, and 
places them under his control ; and he cannot escape the 
responsibility of what follows. Eld. C. is neither a 
child nor a fool. He well knew what prompted Dr. 
V. to pay for these articles, and that he would do his ut- 
most to make them hurt S. D. Adventists. And on the 
very face of it, one was written by the Elder to be circu- 
lated on the camp-ground ; for it was directed to those 
on the ground, and they were told to " examine " certain 
books there. It was written with malevolent intent — 
written to break down before the citizens of Grand 
Rapids the influence of ''Mrs. E. 0. W7rite, the proph- 
etess." It speaks of her in a most scandalous way, im- 
plying that she was acting a double-faced, hypocritical 
part : "Her words will be smoother than oil." But her 
statement about the popular churches is "shamefully 

We claim emphatically, that Eld. Canright intended to 
have these statements of his circulated in some way upon 
that camp-ground ; and the very words of his own ar- 
ticle, and all the circumstances connected with it, abun- 
dantly substantiate the truthfulness of this statement. 
He must either stand in this position, or deny the author- 
ship of this wretched sheet which was circulated by the 
thousand on the camp-ground, on his "Sunday Lord's 
day." How much he knew as to just what the agents 

of this " partnership " would do, and just how far they 
would go, has little to do with it. When a man puts 
liquor to his throat, and goes off under its influence and 
murders a man, the law holds him responsible for his 
acts. He knew what sort of stuff that was before he' 
swallowed it He knew what kind of work it sometimes 
made men do when under its influence. So Eld. Can- 
right, when he wrote such words and placed them in the 
hands of a man actuated by the spirit Dr. V. had, knew, 
or should have known, the use to which he would likely 
put them. A little dodge that he himself did not go to 
any printing-offices, or personally hire any agents to go 
to the camp-ground and scatter this trash, has very little 
importance. He placed it in the hands of those whom 
he had every reason to believe would do it and, as the 
result proved, actually did do it. And he himself was 
really a party to the whole transaction, and got "paid" 
for his part of it How could his responsibility be made 
more manifest. Why, on the same ground the writer 
could claim no responsibility in the circulation of the 
Extra, though he wrote a large part of it. He has no 
remembrance of circulating even three copies. Yet Eld. 
C. will hardly be likely to release him from responsibil- 
ity in the premises. The Elder will have to try again 
before he convicts Eld. Butler of any substantial mis- 


I am next charged with doing Eld. Canright and the 
Baptist Church great injustice by some statements made 
concerning his ordination. He says my statements are 
"untrue" and "very unjust" He says I accused him of 
putting a "padlock upon his mouth" on the "subject of 
the soul," and that he "sold his conscience and his lib- 
erty for a place in the church." Well, such charges do 
seem rather hard on such a consistent, conscientious man 
as Eld. Canright has proved himself to be, surely. He 
calls upon one of his good brethren in the Baptist minis- 
try to help him out, and relieve him from the odium of 
my "unjust" charges. So the Rev. T. M. Shanafelt, sec- 
retary of the council which examined Eld. C. before his 
ordination, comes gallantly to the rescue, and declares 
two of my statements "untrue." "The soul question 

Digitized by the Center J 

— 188- 

was not discussed" at all, he would have us believe, at 
the time of Eld. Canright's ordination. He had no "pri- 
vate examination " of any kind. This is wholly " con- 
trary to Baptist usage and custom," the good secretary 
tells us. The Elder himself also kindly assures us that 
he has the most delightful liberty among his new asso- 
ciations in the Baptist Church, "to preach the word of 
God as he understands it." His " Baptist brethren have 
accorded him the fullest freedom in preaching." He as- 
sures us that when he was examined before being or- 
dained, little or nothing was said on the soul question. 
"Simply one question was asked with regard to the 
dead" or "the resurrection; that was all." The Elder 
wants us to understand he has no "padlock on his 
mouth," as Eld. Butler has wickedly insinuated. He 
has the most perfect freedom to speak and teach what 
he pleases, "all he could wish anywhere." He says if 
we do n't believe it, and think he "is afraid to speak his 
mind on the soul question," to give him " two columns 
in the Review, and we shall have it plainly." 

Surely, what more could we ask in the premises, and 
how consistent and suitable everything has been all the 
while between the Elder and the good old Baptist 
Church on this soul question. It seems almost a pity to 
try to exonerate myself in the least from the "injustice" 
I have committed in insinuating anything about that 
" padlock " on the Elder's mouth, when everything is so 
serene and perfectly candid and fair in this new, loving 
fraternal relationship between the Elder and the good 
church of his choice, on the "soul question." But we 
all know human nature will do its best to absolve itself 
from blame, even if it has a poor chance. So we must 
make an effort: — 

1. It will be noticed by the reader, in the extract Mr. 
Shanafelt quotes from me in the Extra, that I made no 
claim of knowing anything personally about the proceed- 
ings of the council examining Eld. Canright before his 
ordination, not being present. I only stated that I was 
" informed." This is true. I was so informed. 

2. I intimated in the article in the Extra, entitled "0 
Consistency ! " that the relationship on the soul ques- 
tion, between Eld. Canright, an ordained Baptist min- 
ister, and the church with which he was connected, was 
a very anomalous one, to say the least. 

Digitized by the 

— 189 — 

3. I stated that he had been a man of very pronounced 
views on the question of the immortality of the soul and 
kindred topics, for many years, having been intensely 
opposed to the view that man by nature is immortal, 
and also to the doctrine of eternal torment. 

4. I further stated that the Baptist Church, as every- 
body knows, held both of these views very strenuously in 
their creed ; indeed, that the orthodox churches with 
whom Eld. Canright now affiliates regarded a belief in 
these doctrines as more important than many others they 
held, and denounced the views which the Elder had al- 
ways advocated on this subject, as the most dangerous 

5. That so far as I had learned, the Elder had never 
intimated in a single instance, publicly or privately, that 
he had changed his former opinions a particle on this 
subject. But on the contrary, considering the fact that 
he so bitterly opposed S. D. Adventists on the Sabbath, 
the law, the prophecies, and most other points of faith, 
but never did on the question of the soul and kindred 
subjects, we were authorized to believe he still held 
the views he always had on this point. 

6. That it was a most inconsistent position for a church 
to employ a man as pastor over a congregation, to teach 
what it regarded as a great error, or refrain from teach- 
ing what it considered important truth, there being 
scarcely any question in the whole realm of Bible doc- 
trine made more prominent or important than that re- 
lating to man's future. It is directly involved in the plan 
of salvation, and has an important bearing on the gov- 
ernment of God ; and Eld. Canright has ever taught that 
many of the most erroneous doctrines existing grow out 
of this one of the immortality of the soul. 

7. In view of the ominous silence of both parties on 
this question, and the Elder's marked reticence concern- 
ing it, while we know he always used to have so much 
to say upon it, we intimated that he had a "padlock on 
his mouth," on the soul question, the expression only im- 
plying that something remarkable had choked his utter- 
ance. He thinks this very unjust. 

But what does he say to relieve himself or his church 
from this aspersion upon the propriety of their present 
relation? Why does he call in Eld. Shanafelt to state 
that certain remarks which I gave simply as second-hand 

dventist Research 

information were incorrect? that he did not have a 
"private investigation," and was not asked concerning 
the soul question? This question was entirely ignored. 
There seems to have been a beautiful and harmonious un- 
derstanding on this subject, and never a word said. 
There was such a sweet and perfect union of spirit on 
this interesting occasion when the Elder was to be or- 
dained as a Baptist minister, that such little matters of 
theology as to whether countless myriads of men, women, 
and children were to be tortured to all eternity, or not, 
were not worth considering for a moment. It mattered 
not whether the soul was immortal or not, in the minds 
of this large council of reverend D. D's. No matter what 
the Elder thought about it,— whether he believed men 
go to heaven at death, or that man had no more soul 
than a brute. Such little matters were not worth asking 
a question about, if he was only to be made a Baptist 
minister. What is theology any way, and what does it 
amount to? And why should they ask him any questions 
at all, or hold any council over him? Wasn't the fact that 
he had left the poor, deluded "Advents "enough evidence 
any way to show he was all right? Truly the Baptists 
are a large-hearted people, and believe in great freedom, 
when they can take a minister so readily and so fully on 
trust, who has been under the corrupting influences and 
the "fanaticism" of this despised people for twenty- 
eight years, and never ask him a question upon the most 
important doctrines of their faith. It does n't seem to be 
of much importance any way what a man believes or 
teaches, if he is only to join the church. 

Now in all seriousness, we say it is very hard for us to 
believe this matter was left in any such loose way as the 
two Elders would have us believe. It does n't look sen- 
sible. All the facts seem to us to point rather to this 
conclusion, that there was a perfect understanding be- 
forehand between Eld. Canright and some of these good 
Baptist divines, and that he was to keep mum on this 
subject. Very likely this was not made apparent on the 
surface. Such understandings are not usually blown 
out upon the world with a trumpet. They are more apt 
to occur in some very quiet, retired way. I have no idea 
that this understanding was reached in that public exam- 
ination. Hardly ; those doctors of divinity would not 
have been likely to leave their pleasant homes to come 

— 191 — 

to Otsego, at large expense and inconvenience, until this 
matter was all well understood, And here is where the 
" padlock " question comes in. What evidence has Eld. 
Canright given us that he speaks his mind freely on this 
soul question? Why, forsooth, he will furnish the Re- 
view, if we will open our pages, two solid columns of 
matter on this subject. Generous soul ! In the first place, 
he knows we would not open our pages to him any way, 
so he is perfectly safe in making the statement. In the 
second place, we are in no need of enlightenment on the 
question, if he holds his old views. We are all sound 
on that subject. But to give him a chance to show his 
sincerity and the "fullest freedom" to speak " the word 
of God as he understands it," let him speak his senti- 
ments in his own church, where they need it so badly. 
Let him enlighten the Baptists on the horrible nature of 
eternal torment, publish it in their papers, etc., and see 
how much this "fullest freedom" amounts to. 

Let the reader carefully peruse his present article, and 
tell us of a single hint, the remotest intimation in the 
whole article, as to what his views are on this subject. 
If this does n't indicate the tightest kind of "padlock" 
on the Elder's mouth yet. then we are unable to judge. 
We dare the Elder to publish his views on that subject 
in any way that will tend to influence Baptist opinion ; 
that is, if he still holds to his former opinions. We think 
it very probable he will, after long meditation, come out 
on the other side, and be an immortal-soulist. He has 
placed himself in a false position, and made such radical 
changes, that we are fully prepared for this. It will be 
no great matter to turn one more somersault for one who 
has proved himself so agile heretofore. Poor, poor man ! 
what a pitiable spectacle his course for the last year pre- 
sents ! From our souls we pity him. He may call it 
"injustice," "misrepresentation," or what he will, he 
cannot conceal the fact that the attitude he has taken, 
and that of his church concerning the soul question, is 
anything but a proper one. 

"0 Consistency, thou art a jewel," applied to this mat- 
ter, we know cuts close. But it is the truth in the case 
which furnishes the edge to make it cut. The effort to 
get rid of the force of what I said in the Extra, by call- 
ing attention to supposed errors in what I gave as in- 
formation furnished by another, does not change the 

dventist Research 

— 192 — 

actual status. To all intents and purposes, the Iflder's 
mouth has been " padlocked" on the soul question for a 
year past, to the very best of our knowledge. And the 
greediness with which these popular churches take up 
men for ministers who have been tainted so long with 
gross error, "fanaticism/' "infidelity," as they claim Ad- 
ventism to be, is most illuminating. It shows right on 
the face of it that they do n't really believe that this doc- 
trine injures people, corrupts their morals, or keeps them 
from being Christians. Their course shows unmistaka- 
bly that they would be wonderfully glad to get all of us, 
if they could. Geo. I. Butler. 


In Extra No. 1, p. 14, appeared the following short 
article, to which Eld. C, as appears from his reply, takes 
great exception on the ground that it presents him in a 
wrong light before the public. The body of the article 
consists of extracts from what he has written to differ- 
ent papers ; and the name of the paper in which each 
quotation was published, and the date when published 
are explicitly given, so that any one can verify the quo- 
tations if he so desires. We ask the reader to compare 
again carefully these quotations, and judge whether it is 
not Eld. C's own words which have placed him in the 
light in which he stands before the public, which to be 
sure is not a very enviable one. The article as published 
in Extra No. 1 was headed, "All Things to all Men," 
and reads as follows : — 

" We notice quite a difference in the tone of Eld. C's 
arguments, according to the views of the paper for which 
he writes. Thus, while writing for the Methodist paper, 
the organ of a denomination which has strenuously 
maintained the unceasing obligation of the ten command- 
ments, he says : — 

44 P. 8. : Lest my position should be misunderstood before I 
have time to explain it, I will say here that I believe as strongly 
as Sabbatarians do in the perpetuity of the holy immutable law 
of God, and every moral precept taught in the Old Testament. 
The Methodist Discipline (Articles of Religion, sect. 6) exactly 
expresses my position on the law : 1 Although the law given from 
God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites, doth not bind 
Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be 

Digitized by the Center ft 

— 193 — 

received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Chris- 
tian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the command- 
ments which are called moral.'— A dvocate, Sept. 24, 1887. 

"Now he knows, as all know, that the Methodist Dis- 
cipline by the expression, ' the commandments which are 
called moral,' means the decalogue, the ten command- 
ments, as they were spoken by God from Sinai, and writ- 
ten on the tables of stone. So the Methodists will get 
the idea that Eld. C. agrees with them in this, and so 
be much pleased. But when he is writing to an anti- 
nomian paper, as the Christian Oracle, of Des Moines, 
Iowa, instead of saying what is to be understood that no 
Christian whatsoever is free from obedience to the deca- 
logue, he says that all Christians are free from it ; for it 
has been nailed to the cross, and taken out of the way. 
Thus in the Oracle of June 9, 1887, we read the following 
from his pen : — 

44 The simple facts, I believe, are these : Paul [in Col. 2 : 14- 
17] refers to the entire Jewish system, the law of Moses as a 
whole, of which the decalogue was only a small part. Every 
word of the ten commandments, Sabbath included, was written 
by the hand of Moses, on parchment, right in with the rest of 
the law of Moses. (See Deut. 5, and other places.) As an 
entire system, as a law taken in all its parte, it was a burden- 
some system, a yoke of bondage, a school-master designed only 
to lead us to Christ. It was against us and contrary to us, and 
as such it was nailed to the cross. The decalogue being written 
on parchment in the book of the law, it would be proper to 
speak of it as blotted out, nailed to the cross, etc, with the rest 
of the law. 

" Eld. C. would not dare address such language to the 
Methodist Advocate. If he did, it would not be pub- 
lished. This is being all things to all men with a 
vengeance. u. s," 

The article published in the Oracle, from which the- 
foregoing extract is taken, Eld. C- says, he did, send to. 
the Advocate, and the editor pronounced it "very fine," 
and promised to publjshjt if space permitted. Personally, 
the editor might have been willing to dp this. IJe has 
come in contact with arguments in defense of the fcrue 
Sabbath. He understands how grave the situation of 
the Sunday institution is becoming, and has endeavored' 
t& defend it. lie might be willing to resort to any ex- 


dventist Research 

— 194 — 

pedient, even to the abolition of the whole law, to get 
rid of the Sabbath. We have before had occasion to 
note that the Sabbath controversy is forcing people either 
to accept the Sabbath of the Lord, or to retire to the 
"last ditch" of antinomianism ; and some are making 
this latter move with great precipitation. But the con- 
sciences of the great body of the Methodist and Baptist 
denominations, have not yet reached that degree of de- 
pravity to which these men are trying to force them. 
And the influence of this fact is seen in the treatment of 
Eld. C.'s article by the Advocate. 

As abridged, says Eld. C, the article appeared as 
number eleven of the series of articles in the Advocate. 
We look over the article, and what do we find ? — Every 
plague touch of the virus of antinomianism carefully 
removed. All expressions to the intent that the deca- 
logue was "a part of the Jewish system, the law of 
Moses, written by the hand of Moses on parchment right 
in with the rest of the law of Moses, M that it was 44 a 
burdensome system," "a yoke of bondage," "against us," 
" contrary to us," and " nailed to the cross," and " blot- 
ted out," — all these expressions are carefully left out. 
Want of space is pleaded as an excuse for omitting these 
expressions. But these were the real gist and point of 
the article as sent to the Oracle. If the article must be 
abridged, why not take out some of the less important 
portions, instead of those vital and essential parts which 
show what his position really is, as it was published in 
the Oracle? 

It is useless to claim that the position of the Method- 
ists as expressed in their Discipline, on the law, is the 
same as that of the Disciples. It is equally evident 
that the readers of the Advocate, the Methodists, will 
understand that Eld. C.'s position is exactly like theirs, 
and the readers of the Oracle, the Disciples, will under- 
stand that his position is exactly like theirs. If this has 
come about so far as the Methodists are concerned, by 
suppression of those declarations which show his real 
position, then the editor of the Advocate has misrepre- 
sented him ; and yet he utters no protest against being 
placed in this false light before the readers of the Advo- 
cate. Indeed, he takes the same position himself in that 
paper, in the postscript to his article in the Advocate of 
Sept 24, as already quoted. The Methodist Discipline 

recognizes the distinction in laws, as ceremonial civil 
and moral ; and while the former are done away, the 
latter are immutable and perpetual ; and this, Eld C 
says to the Methodists, "exactly expresses " his'position' 
But to the Disciples, who do not acknowledge any such 
distinction, he says he believes it was an " entire system " 
a "law in all its parts," and all done away, nailed to 
the cross, and blotted out. If these two declarations set 
forth one and the same position, it remains, at least to 
our mind, yet to be shown. 

We said that he would not dare address to the Ad- 
vocate such language as he addressed to the Oracle. But 
this he says he did do ; and we will take his word for it 
We added, however, this : "If he did, it would mt be 
published:' And this conclusion stands verified ; for the 
Advocate would not, or at least did not, publish it. 
When Eld. C. will induce the Advocate to publish from 
him the statement that the decalogue, containing the 
commandments which are called moral, has been blotted 
out and nailed to the cross, and call it "very fine," and 
induce the Oracle to indorse the position that "the law 
of God," the " commandments which are called moral," is 
a yholy and immutable" law, he will have done some- 
thing toward proving that he does not designedly stand 
in a different light before the readers of those papers 
respectively. But then he would simply contradict him- 
self in both papers, tj. Smith. 


We take the words here used as a heading, from Eld. Can- 
right's closing paragraph in his article published in these aCol- 
umns. One might judge from the remarkable meekness of 
the Elder's closing words, that he was considerably reformed 
and somewhat ashamed of his previous performances, and 
that the castigation he had received through the Extka had 
brought him back to a more rational and consistent state of 
mind. We would that we could indulge in such a hope. 
None would more freely forgive than ourselves, could we see 
; • any signs of true repentance. But we have long since learned 
the difference between a "godly sorrow" which leadeth to 
true repentance, and a put-on outside appearance of submis- 
sion and regret because of overmastering circumstances which 

Digitized by the Center fmti\dventist Research 

— 196 — 

have placed a person where he could not help himself for the 
time being. Such may appear to be quite meek till a more fa- 
vorable opportunity is presented. The Elder evidently had a 
big tussle with that Extra. But he found himself so hedged 
about on every hand by the truthfulness of its statements, and 
his feet so entangled with the wicked inconsistencies of his 
own course, that the best he could do was to write this reply, 
claiming that we had done him injustice in a few instances, and 
closing up with some very lamb-like expressions concerning his 
"desire to be profited" by the "lessons read to him" in the 
Extra, and his sense of his own "weaknesses" which at 
times "overwhelms " him. Does he really cherish such sen- 
timents ? We would that we could believe it 

But, alas ! since these words were written, we find he is out 
in different parts of the State not only repeating his former 
statements, but even going further than ever in his desperate 
efforts to injure S. D. Adventists, and misrepresent us before 
the public. We are therefore forced to believe that these 
words of his showing meekness and humiliation are but empty 
nothings, designed merely for effect, while in his heart he is 
determined to continue to wage this unjust war upon bis 
former brethren. 

But what about this statement, l * I have tried to do what I 
thought was right " ? Well, it is an astonishing one, to say the 
least. The Elder evidently realizes that his course has been 
such that no candid man knowing the facts would be likely to 
think he had done right He must know that it was not 
"right." No wonder that the "consciousness of his weak- 
nesses often overwhelms " him. But this "consciousness," 
alas I does not become so firmly fixed that he changes his 
course. He has since engaged in the same work in a more ag- 
gravated style than ever. But we must not forget that all 
the while, according to his statement, he has " tried to do what 
he thought was right." We hardly feel like denying the Elder 
the slight satisfaction still remaining, in cherishing the bare 
" thought" that after all he had a little desire left to do right. 
It would seem cruel to wrench this from him. It would not 
look well on paper to charge hira with being a hypocrite, and we 
should greatly regret to be obliged to come to such a conclu- 
sion, in view of our many former associations. We have long 
known that much allowance must be made for persons who 
have fallen into great darkness by a failure to live up to the 

Digitized by the 

— 197 — 

light they have received, especially when that light has been 
very great. Light may seem darkness to them, and darkness 
light. The mind becomes perverted. The Saviour speaks of 
some who shall "hear, and shall not understand," and shall 
see, and yet "shall not perceive." Their "heart is waxed 
gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they 
have closed." We are not to suppose they realized this them- 

The apostle also speaks of a class who "received not the 
love of the truth." "They should believe a lie," and be 
damned in so doing. When the light in us becomes darkness, 
how great is that darkness 1 This is a sentiment we see dem- 
onstrated often in this world of changes. Here are principles 
brought to view which are constantly illustrated. When the 
light of God's Spirit is withdrawn from a man, and he plunges 
along with a desperate spirit of resentment against his former 
belief and companions, he is not apt to study his motives very 
carefully. Such may have thought they did right. It is very 
natural to take complacent views of ourselves. Go into any 
prison in the land, and ask the inmates about their former 
conduct, and how many of them do you suppose will be found 
who did not think they were about as good as most men ? 
When reverence for the law of God is broken down,— that 
law which Paul declares is " holy, just, and good ; " that law 
which is "spiritual," and searches the deep things of the 
heart,— we are left to form our own standard quite largely, 
and then it is the most natural thing in the world for a man to 
say, even when under grievous condemnation, if he used the 
highest standard of rectitude: "I have tried to do what I 
thought was right." So we feel bound still, under the neces- 
sities of the case, to grant this slight consolation to the 

But let us notice a few points, and see to what lengths the 
Elder's conscience will let him go and still retain this hope 
that he is doing "right," that we may measure the preseut 
condition of his moral sense. 

1. His treatment of old f r iends. As stated in the Extra, 
Eld. Canright at the time when he withdrew from us, pro- 
fessed the most pacific intentions. He said at Otsego, Feb. 17, 
1887, before the church, that he thought there was a larger 
percentage of true Christians among S. D. Adventists than 
among any other denomination. He expressed the highest 

dventist Research 

— 198 — 

appreciation and confidence in many of our leading laborers ; 
said he was perfectly satisfied with the treatment he had re- 
ceived from our people, and that he felt that he had been used 
in all respects as well as a Christian should. His greatest sor- 
row was that he felt compelled to part company with us. He 
despised the course others had taken who had gone out from 
us and then opposed and ridiculed us, and he would never do 
this. He would give himself wholly to revival work. He 
never would become a bitter assailant of our people. Yet 
within a few months he began the most bitter warfare upon 
S. D. Adventists which has ever been waged by any one. He 
has held us up to ridicule, and made us the laughing-stock of 
crowds for hours together. In his speeches, time and again 
he has done his best to cause us to be despised as a set of fa- 
natics, narrow, bigoted, and unworthy of respect. 

Think of it, candid reader. What could be the motives which 
would prompt you thus to treat old and long tried friends with 
whom you had labored and prayed, whose hospitality you had 
enjo3 r ed, professing to love them so much— with whom you had 
lived in sweet communion as the dearest friends on earth for 
more than a score of years ? After he had come to the point of 
finally parting company with us, he felt himself forced to say 
that he had no complaint whatever to make of our treatment 
of him. We had used him tenderly as a Christian in every 
sense. Yet he holds us up to ridicule, doing what he knows 
will wound our feelings most cruelly, when we have never 
done him an injury. We know he will try to find excuses for 
such conduct. But w r e showed in the Extra that he had 
none whatever, and in his reply he finds no fault with the 
Extra on that point. 

Ingratitude is ever considered a base sin. If this is not such, 
what shall we call it? Yea, is it not a base return for past 
kindnesses ? Think of yourself , dear reader, holding up your 
long tried and best friends as a body before a congregation, and 
raising the derisive laugh at their expense night after night I 
He may say it was their doctrines or some persons among 
them that he thus treated. Does he not know that in no other 
way could he wound the feelings of old friends so much as by 
holding up to ridicule their religious belief or the friends they 
hold most dear ? Does he say it was necessary to show up 
the iniquity of our doctrine ? How about his statement, then, 
that there was no other church in which there were so many 

Digitized by the 

— 199 — 

Christians, proportionally, as among S. D. Adventists? He 
said this himself after he had given up our faith, is a doc- 
trine very terrible or dangerous which develops more Chris- 
tians in proportion to numbers than any other? He goes 
from place to place giving discourses every night for a solid 
week, every one aimed against his former brethren with whom 
he has lived in friendship and sympathy for twenty-eight 
years, ridiculing, defaming, and bringing them into the great- 
est disrepute, and doing so without a single discourse having 
been given against him on our part, or any public attack upon 
him whatever. If this be not a base return for past kindness, 
what is it? And yet we are bound to accept his statement: 
u I have tried to do what I thought was right" 

2. His unchristian course as a minister of the gospel 
Having shown the ingratitude of Eld. C. according to the 
plainest principles of common justice, we next notice how 
this course looks according to the higher code of Christian 
ethics. He has been a Christian minister for more than 
twenty years, and of late since he has left our people, he 
claims to have had special light concerning the gospel. Hav- 
ing discarded the old law, he has been illuminated by the full 
blaze of the gospel sunlight. We have a right, then, to ex- 
pect of him a close imitation of Christ, the great Master, 
whom he claims now to specially serve. Will he inform us 
where the meek and lowly Man of Calvary ever went from 
place to place for two dollars a day, and in eight or ten long 
discourses held up for ridicule the worshipers of the true 
God, and the followers of Jesus himself. Eld. C.'s former 
brethren may be poor, perhaps, and unlearned, and possibly 
very faulty, yet as he himself admits, many of them are true 
Christians. Did our Saviour ever do this to any class, whether 
heathen, Samaritans, Pharisees, or Sadducees, to say nothing 
of his own disciples ? He commands all of his followers to do 
good to those who hate them, and to pray for those who de- 
spitefully use them. He prayed for his enemies who were 
murdering him, and when reviled, reviled not again ; and he 
requires all to do good for evil. His ministers are required to 
follow his example more closely than other Christians. Will 
the Elder find any example for his present course in the lives 
of the apostles, or any authority for it in any of their writings ? 
If so, let us have the chapter and verse. He knows these 
things as well as we do. He is perfectly familiar with the 

dventist Research 

— 200 — 

many commands of Christ requiring love, meekness, mercy, 
and humility, even toward those who have wronged us, and 
rebuking scorn, derision, ingratitude, and such a course as he 
is pursuing. He knows the apostle's statement, that "if any 
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." An 
" unchristian 99 course is one that is contrary to the teachings 
of Christ. Any candid mind can see that his course in pursu- 
ing a Christian people as he has, and holding them up to ridi- 
cule, has been utterly contrary to Christ's life and teachings. 
And yet we must not be uncharitable, but accept his state- 
ment, "1 have tried to do what I thought was right." 

3. His treatment of the dead. The readers of the Extra 
have not forgotten Eld. Canright's treatment of Eld. White, 
the honored pioneer hi this religious movement. He charac- 
terizes him in the Des Moines Oracle as a tyrant, " domineer- 
ing over" this people, and claims that whole Conferences sat 
" for hours like whipped dogs " under his " terrible denuncia- 
tions," and that he u quarreled " with all his leading breth- 
ren, etc., etc. We knew him as well as he, and know these 
representations to be grossly unjust, a veritable caricature of a 
man with some faults and many noble qualities, a devoted, 
earnest, sacrificing Christian whose life was worn out prema- 
turely by his untiring and unselfish labor in hjs Master's 
cause. He admits Eld. White's readiness to confess his faults 
and mistakes, and says he at times made confessions to him,— 
a sure sign of an earnest purpose to do right. They were 
fast friends for many years. Eld. White indeed showed 
often a special interest in, and kindness toward, him, and 
treated him as an own son. At the time of his death, we are 
sure he felt kindly toward Eld. Canright. Yet Eld. C. does 
not hesitate to take up his old friend who sleeps in death, and 
parade before the world and hosts who never knew him, a 
grossly exaggerated statement of his faults and a most unjust 
view of his character. In the world around us, whose stand- 
ard of propriety is far too low, there is a general acknowledg- 
ment that the memory of the dead, who cannot defend them- 
selves, should be respected. What shall we say, then, of a 
Christian minister, whom the Bible commands to speak evil of 
no man, when he, because of a change of religious views, pro- 
ceeds remorselessly to break the cerements of the tomb, and 
drag before the public an old friend five years dead, and pa- 
rade though the public prints to exulting enemies, grossly 

Digitized by the Center 

—Sol — 

Must statements concerning his character? Eld. White 
was highly respected by leading citizens where he was best 
known. His biography was published among others in the 
list of prominent citizens of the State of Michigan, as a man 
worthy of honor, for energy, breadth of mind, and Christian 
philanthropy. But it is left for one who for years ate at his 
table, associated with him in the most familiar manner as a 
personal friend, a brother in Christian fellowship, to now drag 
his supposed faults before a cold world, and denounce him as 
tyrannical, a quarrelsome, domineering man worthy of little 
respect. But the Elder says, "I have tried to do what I 
thought was right," and we are, of course, bound to believe 

3. His treatment of Mrs. White. For a full description of 
Eld. Canright's course toward her, we refer the reader to the 
article in the former Extra, where it is presented at length. 
In his reply herein published, he makes no complaint of in- 
justice in this particular in the Extra. In that article, it 
will be seen that at one time when it will suit his purpose, he 
presents her as being " as good a woman as he knew." M Her 
piety was unquestioned." " She was a kind-hearted woman, 
philanthropic, charitable, and gentle in her life, and ever 
evinced a love for humanity." And "she was doubtless hon- 
est in supposing she had revelations," etc., and much more of 
this complimentary talk. But when he chose to take the 
other side of the question, he denounced her as acting a hypo, 
critical part, talking " as smooth as oil " before the public, but 
making statements to her own people that were "shamefully 
false;" and declared that her course was so wicked that it 
ought to "shut her out of every pulpit in the land; " that she 
rules her " people with a rod of iron," and "condemns every- 
body who rejects her testimonies." He compares her work 
with that of Joseph Smith, Joanna Southcott, and Ann L eei 
giving them the preference in point of ability or excellence, 
and in their proof of inspiration, and really sets the Mormons, 
Shakers, and followers of Southcott far in advance of the 
S. D. Adventists. In thus doing, a man of his parts, if he 
stopped to reflect a moment, must see that he utterly contra- 
dicts his own statements made over and over, as we clearly 
showed in the Extra, and proved them to be utterly unre- 

We here inquire, What cause has he for thus treating Mrs* 

Adventist Research 

— 202 — 

White ? What injury has she done him? How has she pro- 
voked his wrath, and where did she do him any wrong? He 
has never informed us. No, he has not even given us a hint 
of anything of the kind. Why, then, should he feel called 
upon to parade her name through column after column of the 
public prints, when, according to his own statements since 
he became a Baptist minister, she was " as good a woman 
as he knew," "her piety was unquestioned," she was u kind- 
hearted," "philanthropic," and "ever evinced a love for 
humanity." These were his own statements at Otsego, 
Mich., before a pubJic congregation in the Baptist church 
where he was pastor. From that day to this, to the best 
of our knowledge, Mrs. White has never referred to him 
in print or in public speaking. She has used him well, has 
been like a mother to him in the past, and only a year or two 
before he began this raid upon her, he was very glad to have 
her make a home at his house through a series of meetings ; 
and when they parted last, they did so as warm friends. And 
now he can hold her up to ridicule, excite the derisive laugh, 
and sneeringly speak of her as the "prophetess" before a 
public congregation or in print. Is this a consistent course for 
a Christian minister to take toward a lady, as " good a woman 
as he knew " ? Is this politeness ? Is this being ' 1 courteous " 
to all, as the Bible commands him ? Is this doing as he would 
be done by? Should a minister of Jesus Christ repay kind- 
ness with bitterness and public denunciation, simply because he 
lias changed his religious views ? Such conduct seems to the 
writer to be not only unchristian but utterly ungentlemanly. 
Yet the Elder assures us he has all the while "tried to do 
what he thought was right," and it would not be courteous to 
question his word. 

4. His untruthfulrepresentaUons of our positions. Eld. 
Canright, two or three weeks since, had a very triumphant (?) 
meeting near Bushnell, Mich., during which he "exposed" 
S. D. Adventism in eight solid discourses, at the rate of two 
dollars per day and some extra collections thrown in, much 
to the satisfaction of many who wish us ill, but without any 
damage to ourselves. Eld. I. D. Van Horn was present a 
portion of the time, and replied to his attacks. He makes the 
following statements:— 

St. Charles, Mich., Feb. 6, 1888. 
Having recently had the opportunity of hearing Eld. Can- 
right in his raid against his former brethren, the B. D. Advent- 

Digitized by the Center 

— 203 — 

ists, I can truthfully say that he often uses unfair and dishon- 
orable means to carry his points, to prejudice the people against 
us. This is seen in his gross misrepresentations of points of 
our faith which he must surely know by his long experience 
with our people. I will give one instance : He stated plainly, 
before a crowded house, "that S. D. Adventists have believed 
and taught that Sunday is the mark of the beast, and that all 
who have kept Sunday, and who are now keeping it, have had, 
and now have the mark of the beast. Their prophetess, Mrs. 
White, says so in 'Vol. IV., Great Controversy,' page 281. 
She says : ' The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the re- 
ception of the mark.' " 

Taking this sentence out from its connection, and using it in 
the manner he did, is a direct falsehood against Sr. White, and 
against the whole body of S. D. Adventists. Any one taking 
the pains to read the whole paragraph in which this sentence is 
found, must arrive at this conclusion. 

I. D. Van Horn. 

Eld. Van Horn is well known as one of the most candid 
and careful of men in his statements. Eld. Canright himself 
indorsed him before that public congregation as an "honest 
man and a Christian ; " besides, a crowd of people heard him 
at the time. We must express our astonishment that Eld. C. 
should make such statements as these, and we can account for 
it only by the fact that he is evidently driven on and controlled 
by a spirit which makes him utterly reckless. Lest the reader 
will think this a harsh statement, we will present a few facts. 
We quote a few statements from our standard works, which 
have been long in print, to show the position of our people on 
this subject :— 

It will be said again, Then all Sunday-keepers have the mark 
of the beast «; then all the good of past ages who kept this day 
had the mark of the beast ; then Luther, Whitefleld, the Wes- 
leys, and all who have doue a good and noble work of reforma- 
tion had the mark of the beast ; then all the blessings that have 
been poured upon the reformed churches have been poured up- 
on those who had the mark of the beast. We answer, No! 
And we are sorry to say that some professedly religious teach- 
ers, though many times corrected, persist in misrepresenting us 
on this point. We have never so held ; we have never so 
taught. Our premises lead to no such conclusions. Give ear : 
The mark and worship of the beast are enforced by the two- 
horned beast. The receiving of the mark of the beast is a 
specific act which the two-horned beast is to cause to be done. 

dventist Research 

— 204 — 

The third message of Revelation 1 4 is a warning mercifully sent 
out in advance, to prepare the people for the coming danger. 
There can therefore be no worship of the beast, nor reception 
of his mark, such as is contemplated in the prophecy, till it is 
enforced by the two-homed beast.— Thoughts on Daniel and the 
Revelation, pp. 602, 603. 

Much more of the same kind follows. Again :— 
We know the objection which will here immediately fly to the 
lips of an opponent. He will say, Then all Sunday-keepers past 
or present, however eminent as servants of God, have had or 
now have the mark of the beast. And we quickly answer, Not 
one. Why ? — Because they have not kept it, and are not keep- 
ing it, with the issue before them presented in the prophecy. 
They have supposed they were keeping the fourth command- 
ment according to the will of God." — Synopsis of Present Truth, 
p. 59. 

Much more to the same intent might be taken from this 
work, and also from the "Marvel of Nations," pp. 184, 185. 
These are all standard works with which Eld. C. was well 
acquainted. He has known these were the positions of our 
people for a quarter of a century. And having been with 
him in tent labor four different tent seasons, I personally 
know that he taught the same thing, and did not teach that 
the honest Christians of the past had the mark of the beast 
He ever argued against that idea with all his might. How, 
then, dare he make such statements ? 

But he must not fail, of course, to give Mrs. White a thrust, 
so he says :— 

Their prophetess, Mrs. White, says so in "Vol. IV., Great 
Controversy," p. 281. She says : " The keeping of the counter- 
feit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." 

To show how the Elder longs to " do what he thinks is right," 
we will quote verbatim from Mrs. White, on the page he cites 
and the connection on p. 282 :— 

That institution [the Sabbath] which points to God as the 
Creator, is a sign of his rightful authority over the beings he 
has made. The change of the Sabbath is the sign, or mark, of 
the authority of the Romish Church. Those who. understand- 
ing the claims of the fourth commandment, choose to observe 
the false in place of the true Sabbath, are thereby paying hom- 
age to that power by which alone it is commanded. Ttie change 
in the fourth commandment is the change pointed out in the 

Digitized by the Center 

— 205 - 

prophecy, and the keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the re- 
ception of the mark. But Christians of past generations ob- 
served the first day, supposing that they were keeping the Bible 
Sabbath, and there are in the churches of to-day many who 
honestly believe that Sunday is the Sabbath of divine appoint- 
ment. None of these have received the mark of the beast. 
There are true Christians in every church, not excepting the 
Roman Catholic communion. The test upon this question does 
not come until Sunday observance is enforced by law, and the 
world is enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sab- 
bath. Not until the issue is thus plainly set before the people, 
and they are brought to choose between the commandments of 
God and the commandments of men, will those who continue in 
transgression receive the mark of the beast. 

My candid reader, what do you think of the conscientious- 
ness of the man with these words before him, who can say 
emphatically before a public congregation, " S. D. Adventists 
have believed and taught that Sunday is the mark of the 
beast, and that all who have kept Sunday, and who are now 
keeping it, have had and now have the mark of the beast. 
Their prophetess, Mrs. White, says so in 4 Vol. IV., Great Con- 
troversy,' p. 281"? 

We know he must have read this very language ; for he 
quotes a sentence out of its connection, which he could not 
have done had he not read it What can you make of that 
but a willful perversion of the truth, a square falsehood ? We 
are astonished beyond measure that a man who has known 
for more than twenty years what S. D. Adventists have taught 
on this subject, should dare to say what he does 1 We can 
make some allowance for one not acquainted with the facts, 
but not for him. He knows better. 

But I suppose we must again return to his oft-quoted state- 
ment : "I have tried to do what 1 thought was right." Poor 
man ! He must have "tried" and grievously failed. He is 
so driven to desperation by that spirit of hatred that he can- 
not control himself. Such progress has he made in one short 
year, under his new and improved religion. 

We now draw this article to its close. We pity Eld. Can- 
right, and wish to fling no unkind epithets at him. We have 
tried to weigh the condition of his present moral sense, and, 
alasl it seems to have wofulJy deteriorated. So we should 
expect of a man who casts aside the law of God, and runs the 
race be has. He will doubtless go on trying to " do what ho 

dventist Research 

— 206 — 

thinks is right," and we expect to find in him the bitterest of 
opponents. Holy Writ informs us that there are " blind lead- 
ers of the blind," and those who " believe a lie." But the end 
they reach in either case is not desirable. We would gladly 
help such, but we know not how. When forced, as in this 
case, to consider the crooked, slippery ways of opposers of the 
truth, we must for the truth's sake and the cause of God speak 
plain, and strip off the covering of deception, and expose the 
hiding-place of iniquity. We dislike, however, to have to do 
this work, and much prefer to preach the truth of God and la- 
bor for the salvation of precious souls. q. t b. 


We present as a theological curiosity, and as an evi- 
dence of pastoral consistency(?), the following leaflet, 
which Eld. Canright himself was seen to circulate with 
his own hand, in a revival meeting in his own church 
at Otsego, Mich., a few weeks since, according to the 
statement of an eye-witness, and which very likely he 
prepared with his own pen : — 


1. Is it because I am afraid of ridicule and of what others 
may say of me? 

'•Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my word6, of 
him shall the Son of man be ashamed." 

2. Is it because of the inconsistencies of professing Chris- 

"Every man shall give an account of himself to God." 

3. Is it because I am not willing to give up all to Christ? 

" What shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and 
lose his own soul?" 

4. Is it because I am afraid that I shall not be accepted? 
" Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." 

5. Is it because I fear I am too great a sinner? 

" The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." 

6. Is it because I am afraid I shall not hold out? 

" He that hath begun a good work in you will perform it 
unto the day of Jesus Christ." 

7. Is it because I am thinking that I will do as well as I can, 
and that God ought to be satisfied with that? 

u Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one 
point, he is guilty of all. 11 

Digitized by the Center 

— 207 — 

8. Is it because I am postponing the matter, without any 

definite reason? 

"Boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not 
what a day may bring forth." 

Will You be a Christian NOW? 

It will be noticed that a reply to one question in the 
list, we have italicized. We have no fault to find with 
the leaflet, or the portion emphasized above. It is very 
good. But we quote the remaining part of the script- 
ure in full from which this is taken. James 2 : 8-12: 
"If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: but 
if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are 
convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall 
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 
For he that said [or, that law which said, margin], Do not 
commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou 
commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a 
transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they 
that shall be judged by the law of liberty." 

This glorious text shows so clearly the kingly au- 
thority of the law of ten commandments, the binding 
force of each and every command contained in it, the 
fact that it is the standard by which we shall be judged 
in the last day, that it is the law which condemns men now, 
and that true liberty is to be found only by obedience to 
every one of its requirements after we have been for- 
given the sins caused by its transgression, yet Eld. Canright 
is everywhere trying to show that this law is " abolished," 
" done away," " nailed to the cross," and gone forever ; 
and that one of its commands (the fourth, concerning the 
Sabbath) is better broken than kept. Yet when holding 
a revival meeting in his own church, he quotes a portion 
of it in order to impress the mind of sinners with the ne- 
cessity of obeying God wholly. Thus he can blow cold 
and blow hot on the same subject, hold on to a portion 
of the decalogue where it seems to serve his purpose, 
and abolish the whole when fighting the Adventists, and 
take contradictory positions whenever the public de- 
mand seems to require. 

Such "a straw" indeed shows how the wind blows, 
and emphasizes the sentiment, "0 Consistency, thou 
art a jewel! " This is being all things to all men with a 
vengeance. g. i. b. 

dventist Research 

- 208 — 

— 209 — 


It will be noticed that Eld. Canright, in his reply to 
the Extra, printed in this issue, complaining of the 
treatment he has received, and the "injustice" done 
him, and the "wrong statements" we have made con- 
cerning him which he demands we should correct, states 
that he presents a few of the "gravest" mistakes to he 
found in the Extra. He intimates that there are oth- 
ers, "half truths" or matters colored somewhat, and 
points on which we have been misinformed, etc., which 
he will not present. But he has singled out a few of 
the " gravest" cases, and calls upon us, if we have any 
sense of fairness, to make reparation in public for such 
injuries to his good name and reputation. He then pre- 
sents the three points we have noticed. The discerning 
reader can see for himself from the charges of Eld. C. 
and our replies to the same, how far astray we were in 
our statements. We are certain we have done the Elder 
no wrong whatever. Our criticisms upon his course in 
the Extra, on the very points about which he com- 
plains, are substantially and amply justified by the facts 
we have presented, whether or not there were any slight 
technical errors in our statements. He has utterly failed 
to make the point against us he has undertaken to make. 
Our charges fall back upon him after a careful examina- 
tion, with greater weight than in our original statements 
in the Extra. He will certainly have to try again if he 
hopes to break their force. 

But how can he do this, when in the very article from 
his pen, here presented, after a month's opportunity of 
studying the Extra, he states over his own signature 
that these three particulars which he cites are the " grav- 
est " " wrong statements " we have made. He says these 
are the most objectionable points he can find. If these 
are the "gravest," and he utterly fails to prove any in- 
justice against us whatever, how will he be able hereafter 
to deny the charges made against him in the Extra ? 

The word "gravest," according to Webster, means, 
the most serious, the most important. All other state- 
ments, then, in the Extra, which he thinks somewhat 
objectionable, are less serious than these he cites. The 
ones quoted have plainly no force, and utterly fail to 
show any wrong done him, Therefore, after weeks of 

time in which to hunt up something to turn against us, 
he virtually admits the substantial justice of our charges 
against him. Our statements in the Extra, concerning 
Eld. Can right's course, we well knew were serious and 
grave, and they were many in number. We knew full 
well that possibly they might strike a person unacquainted 
with the facts, as being extreme. But the unchristian 
course which he has pursued for months past, demanded 
plain talk and explicit and emphatic statements of his 
evil conduct. The Extra was a large sheet, containing a 
great amount of this kind of matter. One could hardly 
hope in so many words to exactly express every charge 
without a single mistake. But we knew there was 
t\ . no intentional wrong, and were very sure there were 
no errors of importance. And now, after weeks have 
passed, Eld. Canright, after much study, with plenty of 
time in which to do a thorough job, presents two or three 
statements where he claims we have done him an injury. 
These, he tells us, are the most serious ones he can find. 
We have plainly demonstrated the justice of our original 
statements, and he utterly fails to show that we have 
done him any injustice whatever. Thus we claim that 
Eld. Canright himself virtually indorses the Extra as 
true, and its statements incontrovertible. Let this virt- 
ual admission not be forgotten. g. i. b. 


Digitized by the Center jmAdventist Research 

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research